In re Parker

• Decision Date: 12 January 1935
• Citation: 77 S.W.2d 816
• Parties: In re PARKER.
• Court: Tennessee Supreme Court

Page 816

77 S.W.2d 816

In re PARKER.

Supreme Court of Tennessee.

January 12, 1935.

Error to Probate Court, Madison County; August W. Wilde, Judge.

In the matter of Sam T. Parker, guardian. To review a judgment approving the guardian's settlement, the administrator of the World War Veterans' Bureau brings error.

Affirmed.

J. M. Nixon, of Nashville, for plaintiff in error.

Murchison & Patterson, of Jackson, for defendant in error.

COOK, Justice.

Sam T. Parker was appointed and qualified as guardian of Hazel Ernestine Arnold, a minor, according to the provision of the Uniform Veterans' Guardianship Act, Code, § 8541 et seq. The administrator of the World War Veterans' Bureau challenged the guardian's settlement and appealed from the judgment of the county court approving it.

March 8, 1934, the guardian purchased endowment insurance, the contract providing for payment of $6,000 to his ward at the expiration of fifteen years or upon death before maturity to her mother. The contract provided for premiums of $346.14, payable annually in advance, and the guardian paid the first premium.

The ward's income from the estate in the hands of the guardian consisted of $20 a month pension, payable by the Veterans' Bureau, and $300 a year interest on Carroll county bonds. The annual income from the bonds lacked $46 of paying the annual premium and enough would have to be taken from the $240 a year pension to make that up.

The record discloses no facts as to the financial condition of the ward's mother, but on the other hand contains no suggestion that she would be deprived of any necessity or of any educational benefit by the plan adopted.

Upon the guardian's settlement November 22, 1934, the county court allowed him credit for the premium paid on the endowment contract and in addition fixed his compensation at $265.43. There is no assignment of error that the allowance for compensation is excessive, or that it is not authorized by the act.

It is insisted through the several assignments of error: (1) That the county court was without jurisdiction or power to authorize the guardian to invest a portion of his ward's funds in endowment insurance; and (2) that because the guardian misused the funds to purchase the endowment it was error to allow him any compensation. It is agreed that prior to the purchase of the endowment an order was entered in the county court of Madison county authorizing and approving the investment under provisions of section 12 of the Uniform Veterans' Guardianship Act (Code, § 8552).

By a pre-existing law, sections 8496 and 8500 of the Code, the county courts were given limited power to regulate the investment of surplus income from a ward's estate and to authorize a sale of securities for reinvestment. Under the general statutes, guardians are required to keep surplus income invested.

Section 12 of the Uniform Veterans' Guardianship Act, now section 8552 of the Code, conferred power upon the court in which the trust is administered to authorize guardians appointed and governed by provisions of the act to make investments other than as provided by general statutes. The language of the act is: "Every guardian shall invest the funds of the estate in such manner or in such securities, in which the guardian has no interest, as allowed by law or approved by the court."

It is said in the brief of appellants that the essential facts are not in dispute. The only question presented by the opposing arguments and briefs of the counsel is whether the Uniform Veterans' Guardianship Act empowered county courts to authorize guardians to make the particular investment.

The act presents an elaborate scheme for the administration of estates derived from war risk insurance...