In re Hart's Estate

• Decision Date: 15 November 1928
• Docket Number: 21437.
• Citation: 271 P. 886,149 Wash. 600
• Court: Washington Supreme Court
• Parties: In re HART'S ESTATE. v. HART et al. HART et al.

271 P. 886

149 Wash. 600

In re HART'S ESTATE.

HART et al. v. HART et al.

No. 21437.

Supreme Court of Washington

November 15, 1928

Department 1.

Appeal from Superior Court, Pierce County; W. O. Chapman, Judge.

In the matter of the estate of John B. Hart, deceased. Petition by Leila M. Hart, surviving spouse, against Alice J. Hart, Emma C. Hart, and others, to have certain items stricken from inventory filed by executors. From decree denying petition in part and granting petition in part, Alice J. Hart and Emma C Hart appeal. Affirmed.

See also, 273 P. 735.

F. C. Kapp, of Seattle, for appellants.

Arthur E. Griffin and McClure & McClure, all of Seattle, for respondents.

MITCHELL J.

John B Hart died in June, 1927, leaving a will with codicil by which, after directing the payment of his debts, he gave all the rest and residue of his property to his sisters Alice J and Emma C. Hart. The will recites:

'Whilst no provision is made in this my last will and testament for my beloved wife, Leila, yet I wish to state that this will is executed with her full knowledge and consent.'

He was married in 1898. His wife, Leila M. Hart, Survived him. At the time of his death he was interested in none other than community property. Mrs. Hart waived her right to act as administratrix of the community property and requested that decedent's two nephews by marriage, William B. Morse and R. H. Conner, named in the codicil to the will as executors, be appointed. They qualified as such upon an order appointing them by the superior court of Pierce county where the will and codicil were admitted to probate.

The executors filed an inventory of all the real and personal property which upon being appraised was valued at $197,269.46, exclusive of two $25,000 mortgages on two pieces of Seattle real estate. The inventory as appraised contained, among others, the following property situated in Pierce county, viz.:

'Item 11. A lot in Steilacoom, Washington, appraised at $100.00;

'Item 12. American Lake Upland, appraised at $50,000.00, being a certain interest, as yet undetermined, in a tract of land of 77.07 acres in Pierce County, Washington; improvements $10,000.00, land $40,000.00, $50,000.00;

'Item 13. American Lake shorelands in front of the American Lake Upland, appraised at $260.00;

'Item 14. G Street property, appraised at $8,500.00, being a certain interest, as yet undetermined, in lots 1, 2 and 3, block 413, Tacoma Land Co.'s Third Addition to Tacoma, Washington.'

Thereupon by a petition, which was later amended, Mrs. Hart alleged that the four items of real property above mentioned were her separate property, and prayed that they be stricken from the inventory and withdrawn from further administration, that the executors and beneficiaries under the will be decreed to have no right, title, claim, or interest in or to such property, and for further just and equitable relief. The executors appearing separately, and the residuary legatees appearing separately, by their several answers put in issue the allegations of the petition. Upon these pleadings, which are too voluminous to be set out in full, a trial was had resulting in an order and decree denying the petition to strike item 11 from the inventory, but granting it as to items 12, 13, and 14 by striking them from the inventory and withdrawing them from the administration of the estate, and further declaring these three pieces of property to be the sole and separate property of Leila M. Hart. Alice J. Hart and Emma C. Hart have appealed. The executors without appealing have filed a separate brief in support of the appeal of the residuary legatees.

Item 12, the American Lake upland property, and item 14, the G street property, were the separate property of Mrs. Hart. She inherited them from her parents, Jonathan J. and Maria L. Westbrook, of whom she was the sole heir. The first of the two pieces was taken by Mr. Westbrook as a pre-emption claim under the federal land laws. They built a seven-room residence on it and made other improvements upon it. They made their home on the place. The house has been kept in good condition. The G street property was business or apartment house property. Mr. Westbrook died in October, 1903, and Mrs. Westbrook died in December, 1904. Their estates were administered separately but concurrently commencing the first of the year 1905, John B. Hart acting as administrator of each estate. The two pieces of property were appraised at $10,000 each in the Westbrook estates, and the records show that the estates were indebted in excess of $11,000, including a $5,000 mortgage on the G street property.

Creditors' claims were presented for all of the debts except the $5,000 mortgage, and were paid by John B. Hart, administrator, as hereinafter shown. In his final report in Mr. Westbrook's estate he stated that----

The total amount of claims presented and allowed was 'six thousand ninety-four and 94/100 dollars, which the deceased left no money whatever to pay; that I have paid out of my own funds and hold assignments to myself from the said creditors (except City and County for taxes where I have receipts, showing that I have made such payments) for the whole amount of such indebtedness, desiring that no part of said estate, real or personal should be sold, but that the estate be distributed to my wife, Leila May Hart, who is the only child and sole heir of the said deceased and his wife.'

The final account and report closed with the prayer:

'Wherefore your petitioner now moves the court that he may be allowed to make distribution as above set forth.'

The decree of distribution in that estate, after stating that all debts have been paid and discharged, was in part as follows:

'It is therefore ordered, adjudged and decreed: That said final account rendered and filed as aforesaid be and the same is in all respects as the same was rendered and presented for settlement, allowed, settled and confirmed and all of the acts and doings of the said administrator as set forth in said account be and the same are approved.

'It is further ordered, adjudged and decreed: That the residue of the estate of the said decedent both real, personal and mixed now remaining in the hands of said administrator and any other property not now known or discovered which may belong to the said estate, or in which the said estate may have an interest, be and the same is hereby distributed to the said Leila May Hart.'

The final account and report, together with the prayer and also the decree of distribution in the Maria L. Westbrook estate, were in these respects similar, except that the total amount of claims presented and allowed was $471.

It is argued on behalf of the appellants that, upon the face of the records in the Westbrook estates and considering the word 'residue' used in the final decrees of distribution, Mr. Hart or the community of which he was a member became a purchaser or made an investment in the two pieces of property to the extent of the claims assigned to and paid by him. The decree of distribution procured by him, however, does not say so. Manifestly the word 'residue' was used as a substitute for lengthy specific descriptions of the properties as they appeared in the inventories that otherwise would have been necessary and that are nowhere set out in full in the decree. In his final reports he alleged the payments made by him 'desiring that no part of said estate, real or personal, should be sold, but that the estate be distributed to my wife, Leila May Hart, etc.' And in closing the report he moved that such distribution be made. Upon that report and prayer he took a decree reciting 'that all debts of said deceased and of said estate and all expenses of administration, thus far incurred, * * * have been paid and discharged,' and the order was that the property 'be, and the same is hereby distributed to the said Leila May Hart.' In our opinion appellants will not be permitted to successfully contend that Mrs. Hart did not take the property free and clear of former debts against it that had been assigned to and paid by Mr. Hart, under whose will the appellants attempt to assert rights. The matter was adjudicated and put at rest by the final decrees in the Westbrook estates.

After these two properties were distributed to Mrs. Hart, October 26, 1906, and down to the date of the death of Mr. Hart, considerable money was spent on them in upkeep and improvements, taxes were paid, and the mortgage on the G street property was paid, all directly by Mr. Hart. He was an able, successful lawyer, and during all his married life maintained his office in Seattle. The G street property was remodeled in the latter part of 1910 at an expense of $4,600, and has been rented continuously since 1906 at from $75 to $125 per month, much of the latter portion of that time at $125 per month. The home property on the lake was improved by the building of summer cottages that returned seasonal rents. All of the rentals from both places, by an understanding between Mr. and Mrs. Hart, were paid to and disbursed by him in the upkeep and improvement of the properties, taxes, and interest, and in payment of the $5,000 mortgage in the latter part of 1910; this plan being adopted to save Mrs. Hart the trouble of business affairs, and being more convenient to be handled by him through his office.

The remodeling of the G street property and the changing of tenants for that property, together with fixing the amount of rents, were from time to time submitted to and approved by Mrs. Hart. During the 21 years it was thus rented, it appears, as well as we can understand the somewhat conflicting testimony upon the subject, that the total outlay upon the G street property was somewhat in excess...