Hetzell v. Morrison
| Decision Date | 04 April 1945 |
| Docket Number | 17285. |
| Citation | 60 N.E.2d 150,115 Ind.App. 512 |
| Parties | HETZELL v. MORRISON et al. |
| Court | Indiana Appellate Court |
Appeal from Pike Circuit Court; Eldo W. Wood, Judge.
Petition by Mima Morrison Hetzell, as administratrix of the estate of Joseph J. Morrison, deceased, against William Morrison and others, seeking authority to sell land of deceased to pay debts and challenging the validity of a prior sale, wherein by cross-complaint filed in her individual capacity plaintiff sought to quiet her own title as widow to an undivided one-third of the land, and by cross-complaint the defendant Robert C. Fields sought the approval of prior sale to him, and sought to quiet his title thereto. From an adverse judgment, the administratrix appeals.
Affirmed.
Ramsey & Grayson, of Vincennes, for appellant.
Samuel M. Emison and Horace A. Foncannon, both of Vincennes, and Carl M. Gray, of Petersburg, for appellees.
Joseph J. Morrison died in 1927 the owner of the real estate involved in this litigation. He left surviving him his widow several children and the husband of a deceased child.
His widow, the appellant Mima Morrison Hetzell, was appointed administratrix of his estate and in 1929 obtained an order to sell the undivided two-thirds of the real estate at public auction, for not less than two-thirds of the full appraised value thereof, to make assets for the payment of liabilities. The land was encumbered by a school fund mortgage in the sum of $1,000 and it was ordered sold subject to the lien thereof.
Proper notice was given and the real estate was 'sold' in 1929. The sale was reported to the court as having been made for cash and it was approved by the court and a deed was executed and delivered to the purchaser. In 1932 the administratrix reported to the court that the purchaser had actually paid nothing for the land and petitioned the court to set aside and annul the deed, which petition was sustained and the court ordered the sale set aside and vacated.
Thereafter the appellant continued to operate the farm for her own use and benefit, paying no claims against the estate, but permitting taxes, levee assessments, mortgage interest and the like to accumulate against the land. On May 24, 1937, a petition to remove appellant as administratrix was filed by a creditor, following which, on June 21, 1937, she petitioned the court for authority to proceed with the sale of the real estate under the original order of sale. On the same day the court entered an order directing her so to do. On January 8 1938, the administratrix executed her deed as such to the appellee Robert C. Fields for a stated consideration of $3,318.27, and on the same day she executed her individual deed to said Fields conveying her interest as the widow. The administratrix' deed was made subject to the lien of the school fund mortgage but the appellee Fields executed no bond conditioned for the payment of the lien in accordance with § 6-1125, Burns' 1933. The execution of her deed as administratrix dated January 8, 1938, was never reported to or approved by the court.
More than four years later, on February 23, 1942, the administratrix filed another petition in the estate matter alleging the personal estate of the decedent was insufficient to pay debts. In said petition she recited some of the facts above set out and alleged the deeds dated January 8, 1938 were executed by her without knowledge that they were being made for the purposes of a sale, but under the pretense to her that they were for the purpose of securing a loan to the estate. She further alleged the sale of January 8, 1938, was not a public sale; that no notice thereof was given; that she received no consideration for the execution of the deeds and that the bond above mentioned had not been furnished. As parties defendant to this petition she joined herself and all other heirs as individuals, and also joined all others having or claiming any interest in the real estate. The issues were so framed that by her petition as administratrix she sought authority to again sell the real estate, subject to her rights as widow, to make assets to pay debts, and further sought to have the claims of all defendants including Fields in and to the land, adjudged invalid and of no force or effect. By a cross-complaint filed in her individual capacity she sought to quiet her own title to the undivided one-third of the real estate. By his cross-complaint the appellee Fields sought the ratification, confirmation and approval of the sale of the land to him, and further sought to...
To continue reading
Request your trial