Heath v. Maddock
| Decision Date | 16 November 1914 |
| Citation | 83 N.J.Eq. 681,94 A. 218 |
| Parties | HEATH v. MADDOCK. |
| Court | Maryland Court of Appeals |
Appeal from Court of Chancery.
Suit by Carlotta Heath against Frederick R. Maddock, executor of Margaret C. Heath, deceased. From the decree, complainant appeals. Affirmed.
See, also, 82 N. J. Eq. 366, 91 Atl. 1069.
The following is the opinion of Advisory Master Magie:
Of the issues presented by the pleadings, nothing has been laid before me except the accounting of the defendant as executor and trustee of Margaret C. Heath, deceased, under her testamentary dispositions contained in her will and four codicils. Testatrix died March 18, 1906, when complainant, her granddaughter, was about 13 years old. The will and codicils were proven in Essex county by Charles T. Glen and defendant, who by the fourth codicil were made executors, trustees, and guardians of complainant. No inventory of the estate was filed until about October 1, 1911, when defendant (who had survived Mr. Glen) filed an inventory and also his account in the orphans' court of Essex county. By an order made in this cause that account has been brought here for settlement, with the consent of counsel of both parties.
Before the matter was presented to me, the account was referred to an expert accountant, who examined it and reported thereon. By his report the defendant had charged himself correctly, except an overcharge of $27.48; the correct amount of charges being $153,360.20. The payments claimed by defendant in his discharge were reported as exceeding the correct amount by $14.15, reducing the discharges to $29,544.70, and the total amount stated by the expert was $115.038.78, of which $111,838.43 was corpus and the remainder was income. This report has not been criticized in the case, and must stand as the basis of settlement of the account, unless complainant's claim to surcharge defendant has been made good.
The complainant's claim is that defendant wasted her estate under the following circumstances:
By her last will, testatrix provided that defendant should continue to live in the house, left with its contents to the complainant, her granddaughter, with the husband of testatrix and the granddaughter until the granddaughter arrived at the age of 21 years, and free of charge, provided defendant remained single. After the death of testatrix, defendant continued to live, free of charge, in the house with the complainant until he married in the spring of 1910. At that time Mr. Glen had died, and defendant proposed to send complainant to a boarding school. It then became a question whether the house should be closed, or should remain occupied as a home to which complainant might return in her vacations. Looking at the financial condition of this schoolgirl and the friendly relations between the parties, defendant exercised his discretion to keep open the house as a home for complainant. I think the discretion was reasonably exercised. While the defendant had lost, by his marriage, any right to live free in the house, there was nothing in the will forbidding him to occupy the house, or to take his wife there. By the first clause of the second codicil, testatrix committed to defendant the sole charge of the house and the manner of living and the education of complainant. This duty he could better perform by continuing to reside in the house.
Under the advice of counsel, on the 15th day of May, 1909, he took up with his wife his abode in this house, to the apparent satisfaction of complainant, and continued there until the 30th of September, 1911. He recognized that he was not entitled to live there free of charge, at the expense of complainant, and he concluded that he would contribute a share of the expenses of the establishment by purchasing, with his own funds, the principal part of the food for the household. Whether or not this was an arrangement entirely judicious for a trustee to make may be doubtful. He obtained lodgings and board in a comfortable house, with the use of many improvements. But when it is considered that under his deliberate judgment it was wise to keep the house open for his ward's benefit, I have...
To continue reading
Request your trial
- Greenberg, In re
-
In Re Fidelity Union Title & Mortgage Guaranty Co.
...against inadequate compensation in testamentary trusts by N.J.S.A. 3:11-5; Parker v. Wright, 103 N.J.Eq. 535, 143 A. 870; Heath v. Maddock, 83 N.J.Eq. 681, 94 A. 218; In re Estate of Dean, 42 N.J.L.J. 301; Tichenor v. Mechanics & Metals Nat. Bank of New York, 96 N.J.Eq. 560, 125 A. 323. As ......
-
Lockwood v. Clarke
...any event after the death of testator's wife, the fiduciaries were entitled to statutory compensation for their services. Heath v. Maddock, 83 N.J.Eq. 681, 94 A. 218; Tichenor v. Mechanics & Metals Nat. Bk. of N. Y., 96 N.J.Eq. 560, 125 A. 323; Parker v. Wright, 103 N.J.Eq. 535, 143 A. 870.......
-
Phraner v. Stone
...set forth in our statute unless the trustee shall by writing renounce all claim to the compensation provided in the will. Heath v. Maddock, 83 N.J.Eq. 681, 94 A. 218. Here, the testatrix has directed that compensation be allowed to the testamentary trustees in accordance with the laws of th......