In re Heiler's Estate
| Decision Date | 09 March 1939 |
| Docket Number | No. 84.,84. |
| Citation | 284 N.W. 641,288 Mich. 49 |
| Parties | In re HEILER'S ESTATE. |
| Court | Michigan Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Proceeding in the matter of the estate of Mathilda Heiler, deceased, wherein Elizabeth Heiler, as special administratrix of the estate of George Heiler, deceased, filed a claim against the estate of Mathilda Heiler. From a judgment of the Circuit Court allowing the claim, the executrix of the estate of Mathilda Heiler, deceased, appeals.
Affirmed.
Appeal from Circuit Court, Jackson County; Benjamin Williams, judge.
Argued before the Entire Bench.
Shields, Ballard, Jennings & Taber, of Lansing (Stanley H. Fulton, of Detroit, of counsel), for appellant Gertrude Honsinger, executrix of Mathilda Heiler's estate.
Burney E. Brower and Bernard H. Bailey, both of Jackson, for claimant and appellee.
In 1920, Mathilda Heiler built a home in Jackson at a cost of about $5200. One of her sons, George Heiler, contributed $2600 toward the cost of the house and her daughter, Gertrude Honsinger, contributed $500. On completion of the home, Mrs. Heiler and her son George and his wife, as well as another son, moved into the home. Mathilda Heiler kept house for them and George and Elizabeth contributed one-half of the household expenses and taxes, and paid no rent.
On August 28, 1931, Mathilda Heiler executed a will providing for a repayment of the sums advanced by her children. George Heiler died May 17, 1933. On June 6, 1933, Mathilda Heiler executed a codicil to her will substituting Elizabeth Heiler, the widow of George Heiler, as beneficiary of the $2600 referred to in the will, and eliminating George as residuary legatee. In July, 1933, Mathilda Heiler executed a new will in which no mention was made of the advances made by her son and daughter. Elizabeth Heiler was not mentioned as a legatee in the last will, which was probated following the death of Mathilda Heiler in 1935. Elizabeth Heiler as special administratrix of the estate of George Heiler, deceased, filed claim against the estate of Mathilda Heiler for the sum of $2600, which had been loaned as aforementioned. The executrix of the estate of Mathilda Heiler filed objection to the claim, denying the obligation and asserting that if the claim did exist, it was barred by the statute of limitations. The claim was allowed by the commissioner on claims and on appeal to the circuit court such finding was sustained.
From such determination of the circuit court the executrix of the estate of Mathilda Heiler appeals. The question presented is whether there was proof of any agreement on the part of Mathilda Heiler to repay to George Heiler the sum advanced and whether if such agreement was made it was agreed that such repayment would be made after her decease.
There is no question that Mathilda Heiler considered the money advanced by George Heiler as a loan to her as she so referred to it in her first will and made provision therein for payment. Evidence was introduced that Mathilda Heiler on several occasions had stated to various witnesses that the money which had been loaned by George Heiler was going to be repaid to him at the time of her death. The provision in her first will describing such advance as a loan was an admission against interest and implies a promise on her part to pay. It is not necessary to prove an express contract to repay. It may be implied under certain situations from the circumstances. In addition, the statements of Mathilda Heiler to various witnesses that such sum was to be repaid at the time of her death, supports the finding of the trial court that there was an agreement on the part of Mathilda Heiler to repay the amount of the loan made by George Heiler out of her estate at the time of her death. Nickerson v. Nickerson, 209 Mich. 134, 176 N.W. 456;Pupaza v. Laity, 268 Mich. 250, 256 N.W. 328;In re Rezmer's Estate, 283 Mich. 545, 278 N.W. 680;Mayes v. Central Trust Co., 284 Mich. 504, 279 N.W. 923. If such repayment were not to be made until her decease, the statute of limitations did not commence to run until that time. Pupaza v. Laity, supra; In re Rezmer's Estate, supra.
It is...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Burleigh v. Miller
...authorities hold that in loans, similar to the one here, no specific agreement as to the time of repayment is required. In re Heiler's Estate, 288 Mich. 49, 284 N.W. 641; Pinnacle Packing Co., Inc., v. Herbert, 157 Or. 96, 70 P.2d 31, 111 A.L.R. 1055; Milana v. Credit Discount Co., 27 Cal.2......
-
Eicholtz v. Grunewald
...a subscribing witness to each of the four instruments. He could testify as to what he learned as a subscribing witness. In re Heiler's Estate, 288 Mich. 49, 284 N.W. 641. We do not question the rule that communications by a client to an attorney are generally matters in regard to which the ......
-
Dollar Corp., In re
...that based on communications with Zebedee and other board members, Zebedee was obligated to return the money. See In re Heiler's Estate, 288 Mich. 49, 284 N.W. 641 (1939) (court recognized implied contractual obligation to repay Mere allegations that an unanticipated set of circumstances wa......
-
ZOHOURY v. Commissioner
...law, in an action to recover money advanced as a loan, it is not necessary to prove an express contract to repay. In Re Heiler's Estate, 288 Mich. 49, 284 N.W. 641 (1939). Here we have an express written contract which adequately sets out the terms and conditions for the loan. As a written ......