Guardianship of Pharmer v. Pharmer

• Decision Date: 17 March 1931
• Docket Number: 40623
• Citation: 235 N.W. 478,211 Iowa 1285
• Parties: IN RE GUARDIANSHIP OF LAVERNE PHARMER et al
• Court: Iowa Supreme Court

235 N.W. 478

211 Iowa 1285

IN RE GUARDIANSHIP OF LAVERNE PHARMER et al

No. 40623

Supreme Court of Iowa, Des Moines

March 17, 1931

Appeal from Polk District Court.--O. S. FRANKLIN, Judge.

Proceedings in probate in re guardianship of LaVerne and Lucille Pharmer. The facts are fully stated in the opinion. Judgment was entered in favor of the wards against the guardian and the surety on his bond. From this judgment they appeal.

Affirmed.

Frank S. Dunshee, for appellants.

H. W Hanson, for appellees.

STEVENS J. FAVILLE, C. J., and DEGRAFF, ALBERT, and WAGNER, JJ concur.

OPINION

STEVENS, J.

Henry H. Pharmer was, on February 28, 1913, appointed guardian of the property and estate of his two minor children, LaVerne and Lucille Pharmer. On the same day, he qualified as such guardian, and filed a bond in the penal sum of $ 2,000, signed by the National Surety Company as surety. The original amount belonging to his wards that came into the possession of the guardian was $ 10,264.48. On April 18, 1914, the district court of Polk County authorized the guardian, on his application, to "invest the funds in his hands belonging to said minors in land contracts of Des Moines city property, bearing seven per cent interest, or other safe and profitable securities. That, when said money is invested under this order, that the guardian be directed to file a report, showing the amount of money invested and the character of the securities invested in, together with the amounts of each security and the rate of interest earned by the same."

Subsequent interlocutory reports were made by the guardian, none of which, except the one dated March 10, 1919, were approved by the court. The guardian to some extent mingled the funds of his wards with his own, and employed the same in numerous unauthorized transactions. The final investment of the wards' money was in three real estate contracts, none of which were consummated. Upon forfeiture thereof, title was taken to the property in the name of the guardian. These instruments were made in 1922. The above transactions were neither authorized nor subsequently approved by the court. The investments were unfortunate, and the property was, at the time of the hearing, worth much less than the amount shown on the accounting in probate to be due the wards. It should be said in this connection that certain early investments by the guardian of the wards' funds proved profitable, and considerably enhanced the value of the estate. These accumulations were, however, wiped out as the result of later transactions.

LaVerne attained his majority October 5, 1925, and Lucille by her marriage, on October 22, 1927. The final report of the guardian was filed in December, 1929, in response to the order of the probate court. On December 21st, he appeared before the referee, and a hearing was had upon the report and the exceptions filed by his wards thereto. The referee found that the investments above referred to were unauthorized and imprudent. He also reported his findings and recommendations to the court, which were, upon hearing, confirmed by an order reciting that the amount due to Lucille Pharmer McCutcheon was $ 7,845.95, and the amount due to LaVerne, $ 6,175.95. Judgment was entered for these sums. The difference in the amount due the respective wards is accounted for by a payment previously made by the guardian to LaVerne.

Three propositions are urged by appellants for reversal: namely that the wards were guilty of laches in delaying two and four years, respectively, before disavowing the investments complained of; that the guardian should not be charged with the losses resulting from the investments in question, as they were made in good faith, and in the belief that they were safe and profitable;...