Helwig v. Fogelsong

• Decision Date: 06 October 1914
• Docket Number: 29476
• Citation: 148 N.W. 990,166 Iowa 715
• Parties: J. C. HELWIG, Administrator of the Estate of Elias Fogelsong, Appellant, v. THOMAS FOGELSONG et al., BELLE WORKMAN, Appellees
• Court: Iowa Supreme Court

148 N.W. 990

166 Iowa 715

J. C. HELWIG, Administrator of the Estate of Elias Fogelsong, Appellant, v. THOMAS FOGELSONG et al., BELLE WORKMAN, Appellees

No. 29476

Supreme Court of Iowa, Des Moines

October 6, 1914

Appeal from Van Buren District Court.--HON. C. W. VERMILLION, Judge.

THIS is an action brought originally in probate, being an application for the sale of real estate to pay indebtedness. It was transferred to the chancery docket and tried as an equitable action. All the defendants except Belle Workman were in default. The issues were those raised by the answer and amendment of defendant Belle Workman, and were: Whether or not the property in question was a homestead of decedent at the time of his death; and, second, whether or not the appellants were estopped from having said property sold for the payment of the debts of decedent.

The first issue was decided in favor of the plaintiff, holding that the property in question was not a homestead because the homestead right had been abandoned by deceased. The court held that the property was liable for the payment of the debts of deceased, and ordered a sale of the property for the payment of a part of the indebtedness of the estate. From this order and decision no appeal has been taken by any of the defendants. But the court also held that B. J. Hall and May Hall, his wife, two of the persons having claims allowed against said estate, were estopped from having the same paid out of this property or the proceeds of sale. From this holding and refusal and orders the plaintiff has appealed and the claimants, B. J. Hall and May Hall, for the purpose of the appeal appear and join in the appeal.

Affirmed.

J. E Hall and Walker & McBeth, for appellant.

J. C Calhoun, for appellee Workman.

PRESTON, J. LADD, C. J., and EVANS and WEAVER, JJ., concur.

OPINION

PRESTON, J.

Elias Fogelsong, who was a widower at the time of his death, died intestate July 8, 1911. At the time of his death, and for several years prior thereto, he had made his home with B. J. Hall and wife. B. J. Hall was a nephew of deceased. The children of deceased were all of age, and had moved away some years before. Prior to the death of Mr. Fogelsong, there were some negotiations for the sale of the real estate in question to defendant Belle Workman for $ 800, one E. O. Syphers, a real estate agent, acting as the agent for Mr. Fogelsong. But the transaction was not completed. After the death of deceased, one of the daughters, a Mrs. Miller, came back to the funeral, and after the funeral she and Syphers revived the negotiations with Mrs. Workman for the sale of the property, and a contract was prepared and executed. The contract price was to be $ 800, and Mrs. Workman put up a forfeit of $ 100, which was later applied on the purchase money. A warranty deed was prepared and sent around for the different heirs to sign. All of these transactions were soon after the death of Elias Fogelsong. The deed bears date July 20, 1911, and was filed for record September 7, 1911. It was signed by all the heirs. Syphers was acting as agent for the heirs in the sale of the property after the death of Elias. The deed was prepared by Syphers and sent off and was to have been returned to him, but on September 6, 1911, one of the heirs, Thomas Fogelsong, brought the deed with him from Oklahoma. The arrangement was that the money was to be paid to Syphers, but the $ 100 put up as a forfeit was paid on the purchase price, and the balance, $ 700, was first paid by Syphers to Thomas Fogelsong, and the defendant Belle Workman afterwards paid to Syphers the $ 700 so advanced. When Thomas Fogelsong appeared with the deed, he proposed to Syphers that he would deliver the deed upon receipt of the payment, and at that time promised Syphers that he would pay all claims against the estate, including the claim of B. J. Hall. The money was so paid to Thomas, as before stated, and the deed delivered to the purchaser, Belle Workman. Thomas proved to be dishonest, and did not pay any of the claims, but left with the money.

It seems to have been the plan to settle the estate without the expense of an administrator. Appellant B. J. Hall knew of the negotiations for the sale of the property, both before and after the death of Elias Fogelsong; knew that Mrs. Workman was about to buy the property; and, according to the testimony of Syphers, although it is denied by Hall, suggested and urged that Mrs. Workman be required to sign a written contract. As stated, all this transpired within a few days after July 8, 1911. Hall left his claim with Syphers to collect, as he expresses it, out of the proceeds of the sale of the real estate. Soon after the money was paid, he called on Syphers for his pay and found that Syphers had nothing for him. Then hall sent for his brother, who is a lawyer, and these proceedings were begun. May Hall had no thought of filing a claim until after they had failed to get their money from Syphers. Mr. Hall testifies that he has an interest in his wife's claim, and that no claim on her part would have been made had his claim been paid as per agreement. It was represented to Mrs. Workman that the property was entirely free from all liens and incumbrances, and that the title was good, and that she should have a warranty deed. It clearly appears from the testimony that Hall knew of the negotiations for the sale of the property, that he expected it to be sold, and that he expected to get his pay for his claim out of the proceeds of the sale. He did not inform the purchaser, Mrs. Workman, that he had, or that he would claim, a lien. It seems to have been the understanding of all parties that the property was to be sold, and there was no objection to its sale, and that the claim of Hall was to be paid out of the proceeds. The purchaser, Belle Workman, paid the full price or value for the property. As to this, there is no dispute.

To a proper understanding of some of the questions raised, we will set out the substance of the two claims filed by appellant B. J. Hall and his wife. These claims were both filed October 7, 1911. The claim of B. J. Hall is for nursing, rooming, boarding, and caring for the above-named deceased from May 10, 1905, to July 8, 1911, $ 300, and Mrs. Hall's claim is for nursing, cooking for, working for, cleaning room, making bed, and waiting on deceased from May 10, 1905, to July 8, 1911, $ 200. Mr. Hall had consented to the method of settling the estate and the payment of his claim as heretofore indicated, and, as before stated, left his claim with Syphers to collect.

The trial court found by its decree, among other things, that the defendants the heirs of Elias Fogelsong, by their agent, Syphers, represented to the defendant Belle Workman that the property in question was the homestead of decedent at the time of his death, and not liable for the payment of any indebtedness against his estate; that she relied on such representations and purchased the property from the said heirs through their said agent and paid the full amount of the purchase money; that the property was not a homestead; that the claims filed are those of B. J. Hall and his wife, and two other claims amounting to $ 195; that there is no personal property out of which said claims can be paid; that B. J. Hall was the agent and representative of his wife in the matter, and that said B. J. Hall nor May Hall, at the time of the sale to Belle Workman, intended to file any other or further claim against said estate than the claim of said B. J. Hall as left with said Syphers, and that no other or further claim on behalf of said B. J. Hall or May Hall would have been filed had said claim so left with Syphers been paid; that the claimants, B. J. Hall and May Hall, are estopped from now making any claim against said property, and are estopped from having said property sold for the payment of either of their claims, and estopped from having payment of either of their said claims made out of the said property or the proceeds of the sale thereof (by the administrator). The administrator was authorized and empowered to sell the real estate for the payment of the two claims other than those of the Halls, and other claims which might be established against the estate, if any.

There is no serious conflict in the evidence as to the main facts. It will be well, perhaps, to refer a little more particularly to the evidence of Mr. Hall in regard to the facts relied upon as an estoppel. He testifies:

Mrs Miller was the only one of the children of deceased that came back to the funeral. After we buried him she asked me if I would go around and find out the claims that were against him, and I took her wherever I thought there was any claims against him, and after we got through she went up to my house for dinner. I knew a deed had been prepared and sent to the heirs to sign. She [Mrs. Workman] had not paid anything on it to my knowledge. I don't know when the deed got back. That afternoon when Mrs. Miller said we would go down to Syphers' office, and I gave Syphers my claim, she said he would fix the business. I expected Syphers to collect the claim because he said he had sold the property to Mrs. Workman, and I expected the money would be paid to him and he would collect it. I was away after that, and when I came back I learned that Tom Fogelsong had been there and collected the money and gone, and I supposed my claim had been paid, and I went up to see Syphers and asked him if he had collected it, and he said, 'No.' I said: 'Why didn't you? I gave you the claim to collect.' He said he told Tom Fogelsong he had some claims there to collect, and Tom said: 'Yes, I know it. I am going to pay them.' Syphers said all the claim he kicked on was the doctor's bill,...