In re Estate of Christianson
| Decision Date | 09 March 1934 |
| Docket Number | 29,717 |
| Parties | IN RE ESTATE OF GUNDER CHRISTIANSON; FRANK OLSON, APPELLANT |
| Court | Minnesota Supreme Court |
Frank Olson, as representative of the estate of Gunder Christianson, appealed from a judgment of the district court for Norman county, William Watts, Judge, reversing a decree of the probate court, Oscar H. Bakke, Judge, settling the final account of the representative and decreeing distribution of decedent's estate, consisting solely of his homestead. The district court held that the probate court was without jurisdiction. Reversed.
Homestead -- rights -- determination -- enforcement -- jurisdiction of probate court.
Descent and distribution -- heirship -- determination of rights -- procedure.
Though the following enumeration is not exclusive, the probate court has original jurisdiction over a homestead for at least the following purposes: (a) To render a decree establishing record title; (b) to determine who are heirs; (c) to determine what constitutes homestead; and (d) to sell homestead under 2 Mason Minn. St. 1927, § 8834, if parties consent thereto. 2 Mason Minn. St. 1927, § 8729 providing that where there has been no will proved and no administration granted for five years after person dies leaving real estate, anyone claiming interest in such real estate may petition probate court for decree of heirship held optional and not exclusive method of procedure. Hence, where five-year period has run and only asset of estate is homestead, probate court still has jurisdiction to grant administration.
M. A. Brattland, Ole J. Vaule, and William P. Murphy, for appellant.
Grady & Grady, for respondent.
Appeal from a judgment of the district court annulling probate proceedings had in the matter of the estate of Gunder Christianson, decedent. Gunder Christianson died intestate in 1904 leaving a wife and nine children. His estate consisted solely of an 80-acre homestead, which his widow occupied until her death in 1926. June 18, 1932, 28 years after decedent's death and six years after the widow's death, two of the children petitioned the probate court for the appointment of an administrator. Letters of administration were duly issued to Frank Olson, who subsequently filed an inventory, listing as the only assets of the estate the aforementioned homestead and an uncollectible claim of $320 against Syvert Christianson, one of the nine children. Syvert Christianson had occupied the homestead from the time of his mother's death in 1926 until the commencement of this action, and this claim represents the reasonable rental value of the land. On February 25, 1933, Syvert Christianson duly filed in the probate court objections to the jurisdiction of that court in this matter on the broad grounds that the probate court had no jurisdiction over a homestead. This contention was overruled by the probate judge, who decreed the land to the nine children equally, subject to a life estate in the widow (then deceased), and decreed two-thirds of the personalty to the nine children, share and share alike. On appeal, the district court found, however, that the probate court had no jurisdiction. This appeal follows.
The only question is whether the probate court has jurisdiction of a homestead upon the owner's decease. We think it had. 2 Mason Minn. St. 1927, § 8729, provides:
"Whenever any person dies leaving real estate, or some interest therein, and no will had been proved nor any administration granted thereon in this state within five years after his death, or real property has been omitted in the administration or in the final decree, any person claiming an interest in such real estate may petition the probate court of the county wherein the same or any part thereof is situated to determine its descent and assign it to the persons entitled thereto."
Respondent contends that the petitioners' only remedy was for a decree of heirship under this statute and was not by means of a petition for administration. In answer to this, it suffices to point out that the statute says: "any person * * * may petition." The statute is optional, not mandatory, provides merely one mode of procedure, and is not exclusive. The statute first appeared in 1897. L. 1897, c 157. Prior to that time it was the universal practice for the probate court to take jurisdiction of...
To continue reading
Request your trial