In re Lewis' Estate
| Decision Date | 15 February 1921 |
| Docket Number | 10872. |
| Citation | 196 P. 341,81 Okla. 240,1921 OK 59 |
| Parties | IN RE LEWIS' ESTATE. [a1] v. WILEY. HOBBS ET AL. |
| Court | Oklahoma Supreme Court |
Syllabus by the Court.
By virtue of section 6565, Rev. Laws 1910, and rule 2 of this court (171 P. vii), a guardian in rendering his account is required to attach receipts and vouchers to his report for all charges, debts, claims, and expenses which he has paid except such as come within the provisions of section 6438, Rev. Laws 1910.
In a guardianship proceeding where a guardian files his final report and exceptions are filed thereto, and the county court approves or disapproves such report, and an appeal is taken to the district court on questions of both law and fact, the case in the district court is tried de novo as provided by section 6515, Rev. Laws 1910.
(a) Where the district court disallows certain items of expenditure contained in the report filed by the guardian and no receipt or voucher is attached to the report, and no evidence is offered that the receipts or vouchers have been lost, or that the money was actually expended to discharge a legal obligation against the estate, the order will not be disturbed on appeal.
(b) Where the guardian occupies the premises of his ward, it is not error for the trial court to charge him with the reasonable rental value of the premises, and where the evidence supports the finding of the court as to the reasonable rental value of said premises, said finding will not be disturbed in this court.
(c) Where a guardian reports that he has rented certain lands of his ward and is to receive a portion of the crop as rent therefore, and reports only nominal sums received as rent and upon a hearing on the exceptions the evidence discloses that the guardian purported to rent the land to his minor son and to a negro employee, the guardian furnishing the team and seed, and was to receive one-half of the crop, and no account is kept of the crop raised and no proper return made of the crop grown upon premises, held, it is not error for the court to charge the guardian with the reasonable rental value of the land during said time, and where the amount charged as the reasonable rental value of the land is not clearly against the weight of the evidence, the finding will not be disturbed on appeal to this court.
(d) Where the guardian reports expending certain sums for work and labor upon a farm of the ward, and the court found under the facts the guardian was in fact the renter of the farm himself, and the evidence discloses the money was expended by the guardian issuing checks to his minor children and employees, and they indorsed the checks and the guardian cashed the checks and received the money thereon, it is not error for the court to surcharge the guardian with said items.
(e) It is not error for the court to disallow certain expenditures purported to have been made by the guardian after the ward became of age, under the facts as disclosed in the opinion.
(f) It is not error for the court to surcharge the guardian the amount allowed the guardian for services, where the evidence disclosed that during said time the guardian had been wasting and dissipating the estate.
From an examination of the entire record, held, the judgment of the trial court is not clearly against the weight of the evidence, and will not be disturbed on appeal.
Appeal from District Court, Muskogee County; Benjamin B. Wheeler, Judge.
In the matter of the Estate of Isabelle Lewis, a minor. John M. Hobbs, as former guardian of Isabelle Lewis, filed his final report, and Thomas J. Wiley, appointed guardian on determination that the former ward was incompetent, filed exceptions. From an order of the county court surcharging his report, the former guardian, Hobbs, and the Equitable Surety Company, appealed to the district court and from a judgment there surcharging his account, Hobbs and his surety again appeal. Affirmed.
Edgar A. de Meules, of Tulsa, Malcolm E. Rosser, of Muskogee, and Villard Martin, of Tulsa, for plaintiffs in error.
William Neff and L. E. Neff, both of Muskogee, for defendant in error.
This is an appeal from an order of the district court of Muskogee county surcharging John M. Hobbs, the former guardian of Isabelle Lewis, with certain amounts and rendering judgment against Hobbs and the surety on the bond for the amount found due the ward.
Hobbs, as guardian, after the ward reached her majority, filed his final report, showing a balance due the ward of $32.48. A short time after the ward reached her majority she was declared an incompetent, and Thomas J. Wiley was appointed guardian and filed exceptions to the final report of the former guardian, John M. Hobbs. When the exceptions to the report came on for hearing, the county court, without any objection from either side, appointed C. G. McKoin to audit the different reports of the guardian and make his report to the county court. This audit was made and report of the auditor was filed with the county court. Attorneys for Hobbs filed exceptions to the report of the auditor, and when the final report came on for approval and hearing upon the exceptions the county court surcharged the former guardian the sum of $864.85 and rendered judgment for said amount. The surety company appeared and took part in these proceedings. Thomas J. Wiley, the guardian, appealed from said judgment to the district court, and upon trial in the district court the former guardian was surcharged with $6,169.35 in addition to the $32.48 which he admitted to be due the ward, and the court rendered judgment against Hobbs and against the surety company for $6,201.83. From said judgment John M. Hobbs and the surety company appealed to this court.
Plaintiffs in error admit the former guardian is indebted to the ward's estate, but contend the amount found by the district court excessive, and have discussed the errors complained of under 12 classifications. It was evidently the purpose and intent of the framers of the Constitution and the members of the different Legislatures of this state, in placing the jurisdiction of the estate of minors in the county court and providing for the appointment of guardians, to prevent their estates from being dissipated and wasted. It would be hard to conceive of a case where the record discloses a more flagrant violation of the duties and trust imposed upon a guardian than in the present case.
Hobbs was appointed guardian of this minor's estate in January, 1915, and continued as guardian until the ward became of age in April, 1918, or a period of three years and three months. At the time he was appointed guardian the ward's estate consisted of 80 acres of land in Tulsa county and 80 acres in Muskogee county, and perhaps another 20 acres of land in Muskogee county. The estate was also the owner of certain notes secured by real estate mortgages on two separate 5-acre tracts of land, and while Hobbs was guardian this land became the property of the minor through foreclosure proceedings, making a total of 190 acres of real estate under the control of the guardian. In addition to this the guardian purchased a house and lot in the town of Haskell, Okl., for the sum of $425, where the minor resided.
The estate owned other notes and mortgages, and a guardian prior to Hobbs owed the estate considerable money. The guardian collected the income from this property, both real and personal, as follows: Oil royalties, $7,785.43; interest on notes, $886.74; rents from real estate, $403.35; or a total income of $9,075.52. The record disclosed that the real estate when the ward became of age was about in the same condition as it was when he took charge of the same. During his three years and three months as guardian he reports paying and expending on behalf of the minor $5,162.97. The other charges and expenses for handling and managing the estate and the improvements purported to be placed on the land, his fees, and attorney fees, amounted to approximately $12,000; this being in addition to the approximately $5,000 paid to the minor.
The evidence disclosed that collecting the oil royalties was simply a matter of form; the land producing the oil was in Tulsa county, and he visited the land upon one or two occasions. His other work consisted of collecting $886 interest and $403.35 rent, and looking after 190 acres of land and receiving the amounts due on the notes. He reports by his "careful and economical" management he was able to return the real property in about the same condition it was at the time he received it, after expending for his own expenses, attorney fees, taxes, and improvements, something like $12,000, or about $4,000 a year. The evidence disclosed that he sold or renewed an oil and gas lease on the Tulsa county land and received $8,000 bonus. This amount was invested in Liberty bonds. He received from the former guardian money and notes that was paid to him, approximately $8,000, and the income of about $9,000, making his total receipts in money approximately $17,000 in cash, not including the $8,000 invested in Liberty bonds, and as guardian he reports that he has expended for the minor $5,000 and of the balance he contends there still remains $32.48 and he is indebted to the ward in that amount.
During the course of about the first two years of his administration one attorney represented him and was paid $1,000. This attorney was discharged and another attorney was employed whether to look after this 190 acres of land or what it is unknown, but he was paid over $1,400 as attorney fees, and the total amount expended by the guardian during this period of his term as guardian amounted to over $10,000. We mention these facts at this time, not for the purpose of...
To continue reading
Request your trial