In re Peterson's Estate
| Decision Date | 19 March 1942 |
| Docket Number | 28550. |
| Citation | 12 Wn.2d 686,123 P.2d 733 |
| Court | Washington Supreme Court |
| Parties | In re PETERSON'S ESTATE. v. BURNS et al. (two cases). TAYLOR et al. |
Department 1.
Proceedings in the matter of the estate of Lars Peterson, deceased wherein Mina Quillin and Neola Taylor Higgins filed objections to the final report of C. A. J. Taylor administrator de bonis non. From an adverse order of the Superior Court, C. A. J. Taylor, administrator de bonis non and James C. McKnight appeal, and from so much of the order as allowed fees to an attorney, Thomas L. Burns administrator de bonis non, Mina Quillin, and Neola Taylor Higgins cross-appeal.
Proceedings in the matter of the estate of L. A. Peterson, deceased. From an adverse order of the Superior Court, C. A. J. Taylor administrator and James C. McKnight appeal, opposed by Thomas L. Burns, administrator de bonis non, Mina Quillin and Neola Taylor Higgins.
The proceedings were consolidated for hearing and disposition by the Supreme Court.
Affirmed on appeal and cross-appeal.
See, also, 6 Wash.2d 294, 107 P.2d 580.
Appeal from Superior Court, King County; Clay Allen, Judge.
Bert C. Ross and James C. McKnight, both of Seattle, for appellants.
W. C. Hinman, of Seattle, for respondents.
This case involves, first, an appeal, in the estate of Lars Peterson, deceased, from an order (a) sustaining objections to the final report of the then acting administrator de bonis non; (b) vacating former allowances of fees to the attorney and to the original administrator of the estate; (c) making a considerably smaller allowance of fees to the attorney and allowing no fee at all to the administrator; (d) setting aside certain transfers, assignments, and sales of property of the estate which had theretofore been made to the attorney and accepted by him in part payment of his original fees; (e) commanding the return to the estate of all property so acquired by the attorney; (f) directing the attorney to make an accounting of all income received and all disbursements made by him in connection with the property which had come into his possession; (g) removing the acting administrator de bonis non and appointing another person in his stead; and (h) making a certain additional allowance to the attorney for his services in caring for the property of the estate while in his possession and under his control. The case also involves a cross-appeal, in the same estate, by the substituted administrator de bonis non and by the objectors to the final report, from so much of the final order as allowed the attorney any fee or compensation whatsoever. And finally, the case involves an appeal, in the estate of Lars Albert Peterson, deceased (son of Lars Peterson and hereinafter referred to as L. A. Peterson to distinguish him from his father), from an order (a) incorporating as part thereof the previous order made in the estate of Lars Peterson, and (b) removing the administrator of the estate of L. A. Peterson and appointing in his stead an administrator de bonis non.
Subsequent to the giving of the notices of appeal and cross-appeal, the two probate proceedings, which are intimately connected with each other, were consolidated for hearing and disposition by this court. The appellants herein are C. A. J. Taylor, former administrator de bonis non of the estate of Lars Peterson and former administrator of the estate of L. A. Peterson, and James C. McKnight, his attorney in both estates. The respondents and cross-appellants are Mina Quillin, the assignee of a creditor of L. A. Peterson's estate, Neola (or Neaola) Taylor Higgins, an heir at law of L. A. Peterson, and, nominally at least, Thomas L. Burns, who has been appointed as administrator de bonis non in both estates, in place of C. A. J. Taylor.
The various proceedings and transactions involved in this litigation and brought to this court for review cover a period beginning in September, 1924, and extending to the present time. A study of the record reveals a deplorable picture of the mismanagement and dissipation of a large estate supposedly being administered in an orderly fashion, and makes necessary a rather lengthy statement of the case in order to convey a clear understanding of the questions to be decided. Many of the details here presented have been set forth in one or another of four previously reported cases in this court, each of them directly or indirectly affecting the estate of Lars Peterson. Those cases are: Matter of Estate of Mary Taylor Peterson (Neaola Taylor Higgins, appellant, v. L. A. Peterson et al, respondents), 137 Wash. 137, 241 P. 964; Neaola Taylor Higgins et al., appellants v. L. A. Peterson, as administrator, respondent, 150 Wash. 620, 274 P. 186; National Bank of Commerce, respondent, v. L. A. Peterson, appellant, 179 Wash. 638, 38 P.2d 361, and Matter of Estate of Lars Peterson (C. A. J. Taylor, as administrator, respondent, v. Mina B. Quillin et al., appellants), 6 Wash.2d 294, 107 P.2d 580.
Lars Peterson, a widower and a longtime resident of Seattle, died intestate in that city on September 20, 1924. His former wife, Mary Taylor Peterson, had passed away about twenty-six years previously, on March 19, 1898. Mrs. Peterson had been married Before to one Charles W. Taylor, and had borne him two children: Neola Taylor (now married to H. W. Higgins), one of the objectors, respondents, and cross-appellants herein, and C. A. J. Taylor, the former administrator de bonis non of the estate of Lars Peterson and former administrator of the estate of L. A. Peterson, now one of the appellants herein. There was born to Lars Peterson and Mary Taylor Peterson one child, the above-mentioned L. A. Peterson, who died October 17, 1937, after many of the events herein related had transpired, but prior to the filing of the final report in his father's estate.
Following the death of Lars Peterson, his son and sole heir, L. A. Peterson, was appointed special administrator of the estate on September 22, 1924, and was appointed general administrator on October 6, 1924. He retained as his attorney James C. McKnight, who has continued in that capacity with respect to the estate ever since. On May 25, 1925, the probate court approved L. A. Peterson's report as special administrator and allowed him and his attorney each a fee of three hundred dollars.
Shortly prior to that, L. A. Peterson had filed his first report as general administrator. On June 13, 1925, the probate court approved the report and at the same time allowed the administrator a fee of one thousand dollars, and his attorney, Mr. McKnight, a fee in a like amount. The report recited that, as shown by the inventory and appraisement theretofore filed, property to the value of $243,012.05, as of March 31, 1925, had come into the hands of the administrator. In view of the fate sustained by the various properties of the estate in consequence of the transactions which we are now required to scrutinize, we shall quote the inventory and appraisement in full, except for the omission, wherever possible, of technical legal descriptions of the real property. For convenience, we shall also list, in connection therewith, the amount of encumbrances against the respective real properties:
Description
Appraised value
Mortgage or contract indebtedness.
"Real Estate
(1) "Ingomar (now Park) Apartments ..............
$ 35,000.00
(2) "Capitola Apartments ........................
65,000.00
($14,139.-95)
(3) "Bristol Apartments .........................
45,000.00
($29,289.-07)
(4) "Part of Lot 2, Block 62, Denny's Addition
..
14,000.00
(5) "Part of Lot 3, Block 62, Denny's Addition
..
10,000.00
(6) "Three lots in Denny-Fuhrman's Addition
.....
7,000.00
(7) "Lot 7, Block 27, Pontius Addition ..........
3,500.00
(8) "Bellevue Apartments ........................
45,000.00
($19,607.-90)
--------------
----------
"Total ...................
$224,500.00
($63,036.-92)
"Personal Property
(9) "Household Articles,
500.00
(10) "One Cadillac Automobile
1,000.00
(11) "One Watch, one Ladies (sic) Dinner Ring, set
with small diamonds and one small Gold Ring and other
small articles of Jewelry,
200.00
(12) "One Gold Ring, set with a large Diamond, one
Tie Pin, set with large Diamond, two Shirt Studs, each
set with a small Diamond and one Gold Ring, set with
small Diamond,
1,400.00
(13) "Cash on Deposit in Seattle National Bank,
$5225.27,
5,225.27
and
"Cash on person of decedent at death $54.00
54.00
and
"Cash refunded from United States for mistake in
Income Tax $125
125.00
(14) "Seventy Shares of Stock in the Lion Oyster
House Company, a corporation, of Seattle, Washington,
...To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. McCollum
... ... administrator to waive a right, or admit by his action or ... inaction a claim against an estate. The reasons stated in the ... Denney case are unsound. The case seems to have proceeded ... upon the theory that the probate court was ... ...
-
Holt v. Holt
...239 S.W. 190, overuling motion for rehearing 234 S.W. 1078; In re Eckert's Estate, 14 Wash. 2d 497, 128 P.2d 656; In re Peterson's Estate, 12 Wash.2d 686, 123 P.2d 733; Roy v. Roy, 113 Wash. 609, 194 P. 590; Schumacher v. Draeger, 137 Wis. 618, 119 N.W. 305. When a person is induced by frau......
-
Tucker v. Brown
... ... 3, 1944 ... Suit in ... equity by Willmon Tucker, as administrator with the will ... annexed of the estate of Sarah E. Smith, deceased, against ... Sadie R. Brown and her son, and against the Guaranty Trust ... Company, individually and as ... ...
-
In re Estate of Haviland
...equitable right in the decedent's personal property, but only the interest in the estate vests, not the title); In re Estate of Peterson, 12 Wash.2d 686, 734, 123 P.2d 733 (1942) (“Only after an estate has been closed can the heirs, by acquiring these additional rights in the property, beco......
-
Table of Cases
...2, 2014): 13.4(9) Peters v. Skalman, 27 Wn.App. 247, 617 P.2d 448, review denied, 94 Wn.2d 1025: 3.7(1)(d) Peterson's Estate, In re, 12 Wn.2d 686, 123 P.2d 733 (1942): 2.6(1)(b), 13.10(2), 13.11(2), 13.11(2)(c) Petrarca v. Halligan, 83 Wn.2d 773, 522 P.2d 827 (1974): 12.2(5)(d) Petrie, In r......
-
Table of Cases
...Wash. 631, 291 P. 721 (1930): 17.12(2)(c)(i) Peterson v. Koester, 122 Wn.App. 351, 92 P.3d 780 (2004): 8.6(2)(c) Peterson's Estate, In re, 12 Wn.2d 686, 123 P.2d 733 (1942): 2.6 Petsch v. Willman, 29 Wn.2d 136, 185 P.2d 992 (1947): 17.7(1)(b) Pfeiffer v. Heyes, 166 Wash. 125, 6 P.2d 612 (19......
-
Chapter A. Establishing The Will
...48 Wash. 141. 22 RCW 11.04.250. 23 Id. 24 In re Estate of Haviland, 177 Wn.2d 68, 80, 301 P.3d 31, 37 (2013); In re Peterson's Estate, 12 Wn.2d 686, 734, 123 P.2d 733 (1942); see Hanford v. Davies, 1 Wash. 476, 489, 25 P. 329 (1890); cf. Trask v. Butler, 123 Wn.2d 835, 872 P.2d 1080 (1994) ......
-
Table of Cases
...167 Peterson, In re Estate of, 102 Wn. App. 456, 9 P.3d 845 (2000), review denied, 142 Wn.2d 1021 (2001): 382 Peterson's Estate, In re, 12 Wn.2d 686, 734, 123 P.2d 733 (1942): 369 Peterson's Estate, In re, 74 Wn.2d 91, 93, 442 P.2d 980 (1968): 143, 145 Peterson's Estate, In re, 182 Wash. 29......