In re Koffel's Estate
| Decision Date | 23 November 1928 |
| Docket Number | No. 26861.,26861. |
| Citation | 222 N.W. 68,175 Minn. 524 |
| Parties | In re KOFFEL'S ESTATE. Appeal of HEALY-OWEN-HARTZELL CO. et al. |
| Court | Minnesota Supreme Court |
Appeal from District Court, Lac qui Parle County; G. E. Qvale, Judge.
Proceeding for the allowance of claims of the Healy-Owen-Hartzell Company and another against the estate of Ludvig A. Koffel, deceased. An order of the probate court denying a motion to reopen the administration of the estate and to direct the administrator to pay appellant's claim out of the assets was affirmed by the district court, and claimants appeal from an order denying their motion for a new trial. Affirmed.
H. V. Mercer & Co., of Minneapolis, and Daly & Barnard, of Renville, for appellants.
J. O. Haugland, of Montevideo, for respondent.
Appeal by Healy-Owen-Hartzell Company and Northwestern National Bank of Minneapolis hereinafter called the appellants, from an order denying their motion for a new trial.
Ludvig A. Koffel died intestate in Lac qui Parle county, this state, on November 25, 1922. His estate was administered in the probate court of that county. Carl Koffel, hereinafter called the respondent, was appointed administrator of the estate. In regular course of proceedings in the probate court, the estate was closed and final decree therein made and entered on September 10, 1923. The residue of the estate, after payment of debts, expenses and charges, consisted of 360 acres of land in this state, which was, by the final decree, assigned to and vested in Karen O. Koffel, as sole heir. There was no residue of personal property. All probate proceedings were regular in form and upon due notice as prescribed by statute. Karen O. Koffel, to whom such real estate was assigned, was a resident of this state, and died on May 28, 1925.
On June 25, 1925, the appellants presented to said probate court a petition and motion to vacate the final decree entered in said matter on September 10, 1923, and to have the administration of the estate reopened and the administrator ordered to pay appelants' claim out of the assets of the estate, and for such other relief as the court might deem just. An order to show cause why the petition and motion should not be granted was issued and served upon Carl Koffel, as administrator. Karen O. Koffel was named as one of the persons to be served, but, as stated, she had died prior to the filing of the petition and issuance of the order to show cause. Hearing was had before the probate court on the motion and order to show cause on July 11, 1925, and that court thereafter, on December 31, 1925, made and entered its order denying appellants' motion and petition. From that order appeal was taken to the district court. In the district court the order appears to have been treated as an order refusing to allow a claim. Pleadings were made up and the matter tried before the court on April 28, 1927, and an order made October 20, 1927, affirming the order of the probate court. Appellants then made a motion for a new trial, from the denial whereof this appeal was taken.
The facts upon which appellants base their claim to have the final decree in the Ludvig A. Koffel estate vacated and the assets of the estate applied to the satisfaction of their claim are substantially as follows: In 1922, prior to the death of Ludvig A. Koffel, the Healy-Owen-Hartzell Company commenced an action against Montevideo Farmers' & Merchants' Elevator Company, Ludvig A. Koffel, and numerous other defendants including the Northwestern National Bank, to recover judgment against the Elevator Company for a large sum of money; to foreclose liens against the property of that company, held as security; and to recover personal money judgments in favor of the Healy-Owen-Hartzell Company and the bank against Koffel and others upon promissory notes held as collateral security for the indebtedness of the Elevator Company. The action was pending at the time of Koffel's death. After his death and after the appointment of this respondent as administrator of his estate, appellants dismissed that action, and in January, 1923, commenced a new action for the same purpose and against the same defendants, except that respondent, as administrator of the estate of Ludvig A. Koffel, was therein made a defendant instead of the decedent. Respondent appeared therein while the estate of Ludvig was pending in the probate court. The action was tried and resulted in a judgment in favor of Healy-Owen-Hartzell Company against respondent, as administrator, and others, including respondent personally, for the sum of $13,592.50, and a like judgment in favor of the Northwestern National Bank for the sum of $33,981.25. These judgments were entered on December 18, 1924, after the estate of Ludvig A. Koffel had been closed, and have not been paid, except $1,000 paid thereon. Appellants filed no claim against the estate of Koffel during the time it was being administered in probate court. So far as appears, these judgments were not presented to the probate court until the presentation of the petition and motion in June, 1925. It appears that respondent, at the time he administered and obtained final decree in the Koffel estate, did not inform the probate court of the pendency of the action in which these judgments were obtained. This is alleged as fraud, and appellants claim it is such fraud as to entitle them to have the final decree vacated as prayed for. Appellants had notice and knowledge of the death of Koffel and the appointment of respondent as administrator, but deny any notice or knowledge of the final decree until shortly before this proceeding to vacate same.
1. The probate court has the power to vacate its final decree on the ground of fraud, mistake, inadvertence or excusable neglect, upon proper application seasonably made. Its power in that respect is probably the same as that of the district court. §§ 8701, 8983, 9283, G. S. 1923; State ex rel. Lord v. Bazille, 89 Minn. 440, 95 N. W. 211; Tomlinson v. Phelps, 93 Minn. 350, 101 N. W. 496; Savela v. Erickson, 138 Minn. 93, 163 N. W. 1029.
2. The claims of the appellants against Ludvig A. Koffel were not contingent claims, nor matters for equitable suits against him. These were legal claims for the recovery of money upon promissory negotiable notes, and could have been filed as claims in the probate court. The fact that the notes were held as collateral security for a claim against the Elevator Company, and that such claim was also secured by liens upon the property of that company, made the indebtedness of Koffel on the notes neither contingent claims nor equitable causes of action. Appellants at all times had more coming from the Elevator Company than the amount of the notes.
3. But it is not now important whether these claims could or could not have been filed as claims against the estate. Suit was brought thereon against the administrator while he was acting as such and before the estate was closed. He appeared therein, as administrator, and defended. The action resulted in these judgments against him, as administrator. The judgments are binding and conclusive, and he cannot now question the right of the appellants to bring the suit in the district court instead of filing claims in the probate court, nor can he now raise the question that the claims should have been filed in probate court. He could have interposed these defenses in the former action. § 8815, G. S. 1923; Whitney v. Pinney, 51 Minn. 146, 53 N. W. 198.
When a judgment is rendered against an executor or administrator, in his official capacity, in a state or federal court, and is presented to the probate court while administration is pending and before the estate has been distributed by final decree, such judgment stands as an allowed claim and is to be paid in the regular course of administration. Berkey v. Judd, 27 Minn. 475, 8 N. W. 383; Whitney v. Pinney, supra; Comstock v. Matthews, ...
To continue reading
Request your trial