Lawless v. Lawless, Gen. No. 10164

• Decision Date: 21 May 1958
• Docket Number: Gen. No. 10164
• Citation: 17 Ill.App.2d 481,150 N.E.2d 646
• Parties: John J. LAWLESS, Individually and as Executor of the Last Will and Testament of Fellx M. Lawless, Deceased, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. John Francis LAWLESS, Mary Lawless Burgess, Bertha Lawless, isabel E. Lawless, Mazie (Mary) Lawless, Glenn Thomas, Edward Foran, Leo Foran and Raymond Tracy, Defendants-Appellees.
• Court: United States Appellate Court of Illinois

Page 646

150 N.E.2d 646

17 Ill.App.2d 481

John J. LAWLESS, Individually and as Executor of the Last Will and Testament of Fellx M. Lawless, Deceased Plaintiff-Appellant, v. John Francis LAWLESS, Mary Lawless Burgess, Bertha Lawless isabel E. Lawless, Mazie (Mary) Lawless, Glenn Thomas, Edward Foran, Leo Foran and Raymond Tracy, Defendants-Appellees.

Gen. No. 10164.

Appellate Court of Illinois, Third District.

May 21, 1958.

Busch & Harrington, Champaign, for appellant.

Thomas, Mulliken & Mamer, Champaign, for appellees.

REYNOLDS, Justice.

This cause was appealed to the Supreme Court upon the theory that the cause related to revenue, or in which the State is interested as a party or otherwise. The Supreme Court, by its order of November 12, 1957, held that the cause was wrongfully appealed to that court, and ordered that it be transferred to this court.

Felix M. Lawless, deceased, by his will bequeathed all of his personal property in equal shares to his nieces and nephew, Isabel E. Lawless, Mazie (Mary) Lawless, and John J. Lawless. His real property he devised in various interests or shares to these three, Isabel, Mazie and John Lawless, and to another nephew and niece, John Francis Lawless and Mary Lawless Burgess, the shares of the last named two being subject to a life estate in their mother, Bertha Lawless.

There was assessed against the estate a Federal estate tax in the amount of $48,675.65. This action was brought by the Executor of the estate to recover from John Francis Lawless, Mary Lawless Burgess and Bertha Lawless, as devisees under the will, an equitable contribution in the amount of the propertionate share of the Federal estate tax attributable to the valuation placed upon the interests in real property which these individuals took pursuant to the will.

The Circuit Court of Piatt County, Illinois, entered a decree dismissing Count IV of the complaint, which asked for the contribution, and (upon the findings and recommendations of a master in chancery) found that there was sufficient personal estate to pay all claims, costs of administration and the Federal estate tax, and ordered that said federal tax be paid in its entirety from the personal property as a cost of administration. From that decree, the cause comes to this court.

The only question thus presented is whether or not the Federal estate tax should be proportioned between all devisees and legatees, according to their interest received, or paid wholly out of the personal property. The plaintiff contends that each devisee of real property should be required to pay his proportionate share of this tax. The defendants contend that the tax is a cost or expense of the administration and as such should be deducted directly and in its entirety from the personal property of the estate. If the defendants are correct in their position, and there is sufficient personal property in the estate to pay the claims, costs and the tax, the defendants would receive their share of the real property in the estate, free of the federal tax, and would only be required to pay such state inheritance taxes as might be assessed against them. The other three heirs, Isabel, Mazie and John J. Lawless to whom all of the personal property was bequathed would take such remainder of the personal property, if any, after the payment of the federal tax, claims and costs of administration. While the amount of the personal property in the estate does not appear to have been put in the record, the master in chancery found that there was sufficient personal property to pay all claims, costs and the federal estate tax. In other words, if the position of the defendants is correct, the three legatees would pay all of the Federal estate tax out of their shares of the personal property and the other three, devisees of part of the real property, would pay nothing and their property devised to them by the will of the testator would not be bound for the payment of the tax, if the personal property was sufficient.

It must be recognized that the Illinois Inheritance Tax is computed as a tax against each beneficiary under a will or by descent, for such property devised, bequeathed, or inherited, by such beneficiary, over the exemption, while the Federal estate tax is an excise tax against the whole estate, regardless of the division among the heirs. While some states have enacted statutes providing for the apportionment of Federal estate taxes, the State of Illinois has not done so.

The plaintiff assigns as error only one point, namely that the court erred in striking Count IV of the complaint and in ordering that the Federal estate tax be paid as a cost of administration. In support of this view, the plaintiff cites a number of cases. In Stieglitz v. Migatz, 182 Ind. 549, 105 N.E. 465, cited by plaintiff, it was held that where a testator acquired real estate subject to a mortgage, the payment of which he did not assume, the said real estate is not to be exonerated from the payment thereof, and his personal property cannot be used to pay the same. This court can perceive no analogy between the facts in that case and the problem here. In the case of Duke of Cumberland v. Codrington, 3 Johns.Ch., N.Y., 229, it would seem the law as laid down in that case is contrary to the position of the plaintiff. In that case, the decedent had given his mortgage to secure his own obligation. In this case, the decedent owned outright the real estate, and gave no testamentary directions as to the payment of the tax. In Equitable Trust Co. v. Shaw, 1937, 22 Del.Ch. 47, 194 A. 24, 26, the Duke of Cumberland v. Codrington case was discussed and laid down this doctrine: 'As before noted, where a mortgage was given by the deceased to secure his own obligation, the right of the land to be exonerated by the personalty is firmly settled, in the absence of testamentary direction to the contrary.' These two cases deal with mortgages upon real property of the decedent.

There is an old Illinois case, Sutherland v. Harrison, 1877, 86 Ill. 363, where it is held that as between the widow of the decedent who receives as his heir all of his personalty and one half of his real estate, and another heir the other half of the real estate, she will be required to discharge an encumbrance upon the real estate from the proceeds of the personal property, where in amount it exceeds the amount of the encumbrance.

In 37 A.L.R.2d page 181, it is said: 'Some jurisdictions have a general rule, subject to certain exceptions, that personalty is first subjected to the payment of debts and administration expenses, after which resort may be had to realty, and this rule and its exceptions have been extended to cases involving the payment of estate taxes.'

The plaintiff cites the case of Dinsmoor v. Rowse, 211 Ill. 317, 71 N.E. 1003. This cause dealt with the question of a mortgage on a homestead. The widow paid off the mortgage and the court held that she was entitled to subrogation for the proportionate amount due her from the other heirs. That case sheds no light on the problem here. The case of Napieralski v. West Chicago Park Com'rs, 260 Ill. 628, 103 N.E. 547, cited by the plaintiff, was a special assessment case, and involved the obligation of a lot or land owner to pay his proportionate share of the assessment. The case of Harris v. Buder, 326 Ill.App. 471, 62 N.E.2d 131, was a case where certain bank directors in order to satisfy the bank examiners as to loans of the bank, made their notes, all of them signing them, in the amount of the questioned loans. Later the bank was put in receivership, and one of the directors paid off the notes, and then sued the other directors for contribution. Since each of them had signed the several notes, and each was obligated, the court held that each was liable for contribution.

The last case cited by the plaintiff, Reid v. Corrigan, 143 Ill. 402, 32 N.E. 387, was a case of specific legacy of $3,000 to his wife, and the court in that case held that it was clearly shown that the testator intended to exonerate this bequest from its primary liability for debts and general legacies, yet the court said this: 'In the administration of testate estates the personal property is the primary fund for the payment of debts and general legacies, unless a contrary intention on the part of the testator satisfactorily appears.' In the instant case, the will directs the executor to pay his just debts and funeral expenses, but a reading of the language of the will does not indicate any intention to create a specific legacy in favor of the legatees of the personal property, other than the general language bequeathing all his personal property to Isabel, Mazie and John J. Lawless, share and share alike.

While this case has some reference to the State inheritance tax, by reason of the allowance made on the Federal estate tax, the real matter involved in the case is the payment and from whom, of the Federal estate tax. The character of the two taxes must be clearly distinguished. The Illinois inheritance tax is imposed upon the beneficiaries, and is a charge against those beneficiaries. First National Bank of Chicago v. Hart, 383 Ill. 489, 50 N.E.2d 461; People ex rel. George v. Nelms, 241 Ill. 571, 89 N.E. 683. The...