In re Ringle's Estate

• Decision Date: 06 June 1932
• Docket Number: No. 123.,123.
• Citation: 242 N.W. 908,259 Mich. 262
• Parties: In re RINGLE'S ESTATE. Appeal of SCHULTZ.
• Court: Michigan Supreme Court

259 Mich. 262

242 N.W. 908

In re RINGLE'S ESTATE. Appeal of SCHULTZ.

No. 123.

Supreme Court of Michigan.

June 6, 1932.

Appeal from Circuit Court, St. Clair County; Fred W. George, Judge.

Petition by Anna Ringle Probst and others, minors, against John Schultz, guardian, for accounting and removal of guardian. From a judgment disallowing certain expenditures made by the guardian, he appeals.

Reversed, with direction.

Argued before the Entire Bench. Sullivan & Sullivan, of Port Huron, for appellant.

Don R. Carrigan, of Port Huron, for appellees.

WIEST, J.

A father and mother deeded their property to their son, reserving a life estate therein. The father died, and the son and his wife died leaving minor children. Defendant was appointed guardian for the minors, and, during the life of the surviving tenant, he paid taxes and insurance and made repairs on the mentioned premises. The probate court and, upon appeal, the circuit court followed the strict rule requiring a life tenant to pay taxes, maintain insurance, and prevent waste, and charged the guardian with the money so expended. The guardian prosecutes this appeal.

In 1915, Anthony Ringle, the grantee in the mentioned deed, and his wife died, leaving seven children, and John Schultz was appointed guardian for the children. The estate of the minors consisted of about $3,000 in a bank and a farm of about forty acres, subject to the mentioned life estates of the grandparents of the wards. The guardian paid the taxes on the farm, repaired buildings, built fences, and paid the expenses thereof out of the funds of his wards and asked credit therefor in his final account.

The guardian claimed that the grantee verbally agreed, as a part of the consideration for the deed, to support and maintain the grantors. The grantors were old and unable to conduct the farm. The farm was their sole means of support. A brother of the grantee testified that the grantee told him ‘he (grantee) had to maintain and support them (grantors) as long as they lived, and after their death the farm was his. He had to support and maintain the old people.’ This testimony was taken, subject to objection, but evidently rejected in reaching decision. The testimony related to the consideration for the deed. The witness was not in any sense an opposite party. This testimony was uncontradicted and is convincing, for the old people had reached the point where they could not work the farm, and the farm was all they had, and they needed support as well as a place to live, and, in giving their all to their son, it is more than probable that he agreed to support and maintain them.

In Lockwood v. Lockwood, 124 Mich. 627, 83 N. W. 613, an aged mother deeded her property to her son and his children, reserving a life estate, without any written agreement by the son to pay the taxes and...