Madison Trust Co. v. Holmes (In re Holmes' Estate)
| Citation | 238 Wis. 491,300 N.W. 171 |
| Parties | In re HOLMES' ESTATE. MADISON TRUST CO. v. HOLMES. |
| Decision Date | 02 December 1941 |
| Court | United States State Supreme Court of Wisconsin |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Appeal from a judgment of the County Court of Dane County; Henry J. Bohn, Judge.
Proceeding in the accounting of Glenn C. Holmes in the settlement of the estate of George Holmes, deceased. From the judgment of the court stating the account, Glenn C. Holmes appeals, and the Madison Trust Company, trustee under decedent's will, by motion to review attacks the allowance of certain items of account.-[By Editorial Staff.]
Judgment reversed for further proceedings in accordance with opinion.
Proceeding in accounting of Glenn C. Holmes in the settlement of the estate of George Holmes, deceased. From the judgment of the court stating the account the said Glenn C. Holmes appeals. The Trustee under the will by motion to review attacks the allowance of certain items. The facts are stated in the opinion.Spohn, Ross, Stevens & Lamb, of Madison, for appellant.
Sanborn, Blake & Aberg and Robert W. Arthur, all of Madison, for respondent.
This case is a sequel to the case of Estate of Holmes, 233 Wis. 274, 289 N.W. 638. In that case the will of Holmes was construed as giving to his widow the life use of his property with power to use such part of the corpus of the estate as she deemed needful for her proper support and care, and to convey but did not give her the power to give it away. The will gave the homestead to the appellant after the widow's death, and the other property not consumed for the widow's support was given in trust to named remaindermen. The widow had deeded two parcels of real estate and given a bond to the appellant, who is the adopted son of her husband and herself, all without consideration. We held that the deeds were void because without consideration, but that as the proceeds of the bond had all been used by the son for the benefit of the widow, and the son and the widow had placed a mortgage on one of the items of real estate deeded as security for money loaned which was received by the son and wholly expended for the widow's benefit, and was thus devoted as the testator by his will intended his property should be used, the son on accounting with the estate should be credited with the amount so expended but that the equity in the property conveyed belonged to the estate of the husband.
After the deed to this property was executed, the appellant made payments of principal and interest on the mortgage. This court directed an accounting to determine the amount of these payments, that the appellant be credited therewith, and further directed that on such accounting the appellant should be credited with taxes paid by him on the property deeded and expense of upkeep and improvements of these properties, and charged with the rents thereof received by him. The opinion was silent as to the period the accounting for the several items should cover and as to what taxes, expenses of upkeep and improvements should be comprised in the accounting.
On the accounting pursuant to the above direction the appellant claimed credits for items expended by him for upkeep, improvements and taxes prior to the widow's death and compensation for services rendered by him in managing and caring for the property both prior and subsequent to the widow's death. The appellant appeals from the disallowance of some of these items, and the respondent by motion for review attacks the allowance of others.
One of the items in controversy is for services rendered in management of the two parcels of land deeded. The court denied the claim for services in this respect rendered prior to the execution of the conveyance but allowed for such as were rendered thereafter. Holmes assigns as error these disallowances, and the Trustee assigns as error their allowances.
[1] We consider that the date of the widow's death, rather than the date of the deed, fixes the period at which the accounting for these services should begin. The claim for services seems to consist of those denominated as for management of the property and for care of it. However denominated compensation should be denied for services performed prior to the widow's death. The deeds being void for want of consideration, as held in our original decision, and the widow being entitled to the use of the property during that time, these services were performed for the widow. The claimant was a son. No agreement for compensation was made. They are therefore presumed to have been gratuitous. There is a general charge of $320 for management of property. There was an allowance of $192 therefor. It does not appear when the services in management allowed for were performed. Payment for management after the widow's death should be allowed. Services in that behalf before that time should be denied.
[2] Some of the charges in controversy were for improvement of the properties deeded to appellant. The respondent objects to allowance for improvements but makes no distinction between...
To continue reading
Request your trial