In re Leonard's Estate

• Decision Date: 20 April 1934
• Docket Number: No. 29773.,29773.
• Citation: 191 Minn. 388,254 N.W. 594
• Parties: In re LEONARD'S ESTATE. HAUGLAND v. LEONARD.
• Court: Minnesota Supreme Court

254 N.W. 594

191 Minn. 388

In re LEONARD'S ESTATE HAUGLAND v. LEONARD.

No. 29773.

Supreme Court of Minnesota.

April 20, 1934.

Appeal from District Court, Hennepin County; Frank E. Reed, Judge.

Proceedings in the matter of the estate of Roman J. Leonard, deceased, wherein Oscar G. Haugland, administrator cum testamento annexo, filed final account and petition for settlement and distribution. The administrator in his representative capacity appealed to the district court from the part of the decree of the probate court assigning to Mary Leonard the amount accruing on a war risk insurance policy after the insured's death. From an adverse judgment and intermediate orders of the district court, Mary Leonard appeals.

Affirmed.

Keefe & Fallon, of St. Paul, for appellant.

Oscar G. Haugland, of Minneapolis, for respondent.

HILTON, Justice.

Appeal by Mary Leonard, heir at law of Roman J. Leonard, deceased, from a judgment and intermediate orders of the district court of Hennepin county.

Roman J. Leonard died on May 2, 1928. He left a will in which he devised and bequeathed all his estate, both real and personal, to Esther L. Brahs, his fiancee. His will was admitted to probate, and Oscar G. Haugland was appointed and qualified as administrator c. t. a. Leonard left a policy of war risk insurance, the beneficiaries in which changed from his mother, Mary Leonard, and his brother, to his estate. The administrator brought suit upon the policy and obtained payment in full, $11,218.50. Of that amount $5,382 had accrued and was due and payable to the deceased before his death; the balance of $5,836.50 was the commuted value of the unpaid installments of insurance payable after his death.

The administrator, after paying all expenses, filed his final account and petition for settlement and distribution, in which he set forth that there remained a residue, among other things, of $10,669.18 cash (the balance remaining from the proceeds of the war risk insurance policy). The probate court assigned to Mary Leonard (insured's mother) the amount accruing on the insurance policy after the insured's death, and the balance of the estate to Esther L. Brahs, the sole beneficiary under the will. The administrator, in his representative capacity, appealed to the district court from that part of the decree assigning such sum to Mary Leonard. Esther L. Brahs did not appeal. The appeal was there dismissed on the ground that the administrator was not a "party aggrieved" within the meaning of section 8984. Mason Minn. St. 1927. An appeal to this court was taken from that order and later dismissed by stipulation, and the administrator moved in the district court for an order vacating the previous order dismissing his appeal from the probate court's final decree and granting a new trial. The motion was granted, and the case tried on a stipulation of facts. The court found, among other things, that Esther L. Brahs was entitled to the whole of the estate of Roman J. Leonard, and that Mary Leonard was not entitled to any part of the insurance proceeds or of the estate of deceased, and ordered judgment accordingly. A motion for new trial was made and denied; judgment was entered as ordered; and Mary Leonard appeals therefrom and also from various intermediate orders.

There are two questions for determination: (1) Who was entitled to the proceeds of the war risk insurance which accrued after the decease of the insured, the mother or the sole legatee under the will? (2) Was the administrator an aggrieved party entitled to appeal to the district court from the final decree of distribution of the probate court?

1. Recent decisions of this and the United States Supreme Court leave no doubt but that the insured in a war risk insurance policy may dispose of the unpaid installments by will, and, if he does so, they must be distributed according to the will. Singleton v. Cheek, 284 U.S. 493, 52 S. Ct. 257, 76 L. Ed. 419, 81 A.L.R. 923; In re Estate of Erickson, 187 Minn. 650, 656, 245 N.W. 636, 247 N.W. 679; In re Hallbom's Estate (Minn.) 249 N.W. 417, affirmed 54 S. Ct. 497, 78 L. Ed. ___. The probate court should have...