Manufacturers Bank & Trust Co. of St. Louis v. Kunda

• Decision Date: 02 January 1945
• Docket Number: 39033
• Citation: 185 S.W.2d 13,353 Mo. 870
• Parties: Manufacturers Bank & Trust Company of St. Louis, Executor of Estate of Frank Kunda, Deceased, v. Louisa Kunda et al., Defendants, and Louisa Kunda et al., Guardian, Appellants
• Court: Missouri Supreme Court

185 S.W.2d 13

353 Mo. 870

Manufacturers Bank & Trust Company of St. Louis, Executor of Estate of Frank Kunda, Deceased, v. Louisa Kunda et al., Defendants, and Louisa Kunda et al., Guardian, Appellants

No. 39033

Supreme Court of Missouri

January 2, 1945

Rehearing Denied February 5, 1945.

Appeal from Circuit Court of City of St. Louis; Hon. Robert L Aronson, Judge.

Affirmed.

Emmett Golden for appellants.

(1) A childless widow has an absolute vested right in one-half of the personal property in the estate of her husband, after the payment of debts, and she cannot be deprived of this right and vested interest by a will of her husband. Sec. 325, R.S 1939; Klocke v. Klocke, 208 S.W. 825; Nise v. Stone, 117 S.W.2d 407; Egger v. Egger, 225 Mo. 116; Spratt v. Lawson, 176 Mo. 175; Waters v. Herboth, 178 Mo. 166; In re Dean Estate, 166 S.W.2d 529; In re Opel Estate, 179 S.W.2d 1; Orchard v. Dalton, 175 S.W. 885. (2) The court erred in not holding that it was to the best interest of appellant, Louisa Kunda, to take one-half of the personal property of Frank Kunda, deceased, after the payment of debts. Mead v. Phillips, 135 F.2d 819; In re Stevens Estate, 144 N.W. 646; Emmert v. Hill, 226 Ill.App. 1; Kidd v. Brewer, 297 S.W. 960; Morey v. Staley, 54 Mo. 419. (3) The court erred in not holding that the guardian had an absolute right under the statutes of Missouri, in the absence of fraud, to determine whether or not her ward should take one-half of the personal property of deceased, after the payment of debts, and had no jurisdiction to determine this in the absence of fraud and to declare the statute of no force and effect. Sec. 329, R.S. 1939; Estate of Connor, 245 Mo. 65; Primeau v. Primeau, 297 S.W. 382; State v. Hoehn, 173 S.W.2d 393; 30 C.J.S., p. 362, note 57, 58, 59; Trower v. Rentsch, 270 P. 749; Woman's Baptist Home v. Rayburn, 203 Ill App. 577; Hunt v. Hunt, 64 N.E. 150; Vittilow v. Kline, 95 S.W.2d 1083, 265 Ky. 66; Young v. Boardman, 97 Mo. 181; Harrison v. Aufderheide, 280 S.W. 711; Mackey v. Schreckengaust, 27 S.W.2d 753.

Rassieur, Long & Yawitz for respondent.

(1) Where a husband dies testate without leaving descendants and leaves an estate consisting entirely of personal property, the Statutes of Missouri make no provision for the filing by his widow of a renunciation of the will or a formal written election for the purpose of choosing between the provision of the will made for the benefit of the widow and her statutory marital rights in his estate. Sparks v. Dorrell, 151 Mo.App. 173; In re Dean's Estate, 166 S.W.2d 529. (2) Where a husband's will provides that its provisions made for the support and benefit of his wife are to be taken by her in lieu of her statutory marital rights in his estate, his widow is required to elect between such statutory marital rights and the provisions made for her in the will, and such election is one required to be made in equity because a widow cannot claim both under and contrary to her husband's will. Sec. 568, R.S. 1939; Sutorius v. Mayor, 170 S.W.2d 387; Trautz v. Lemp, 46 S.W.2d 135; Moseley v. Bogey, 198 S.W. 847; Colvin v. Hutchinson, 92 S.W.2d 667; Pemberton v. Pemberton, 29 Mo. 408; Arrington v. McClure, 34 S.W.2d 67; Lindsley v. Patterson, 177 S.W. 826; Sparks v. Dorrell, 151 Mo.App. 173. (3) Where there is no statutory authority for either the guardian of the person or the separate curator of the estate of an insane widow to elect for their ward between the provisions of her deceased husband's will made for her support and benefit and a widow's statutory marital rights in his estate, and guardian and separate curator cannot agree as to what estate their ward should take, the testamentary trustee and executor have the right to petition a court of equity for a determination as to the proper disposition and distribution of deceased's property for the protection of the interests of the beneficiaries of the trust estate as well as trustee's own protection. Secs. 325, 329, R.S. 1939; 2 Perry on Trusts (7 Ed.), sec. 476a, p. 810; Bowles v. Troll, 190 Mo.App. 108; Rawlings v. Rawlings, 332 Mo. 503, 58 S.W.2d 735; Hayden's Extrs. v. Marmaduke, 19 Mo. 403; In re Estate of Connor, 254 Mo. 65, 162 S.W. 252; Primeau v. Primeau, 317 Mo. 828, 297 S.W. 382; State v. Waltner, 145 S.W.2d 152; Young v. Boardman, 97 Mo. 181. (4) A court of equity has the power to examine and pass upon the legality and good faith of an election between provisions of a deceased husband's will providing for his insane widow and such widow's statutory marital rights in husband's estate when such election is attempted to be made by the insane widow's guardian who, as natural sister of the insane widow, might reasonably expect to share in an estate left by such insane widow at her death; and under such circumstances a court of equity has the power and responsibility to elect for such insane widow to take such estate in her late husband's property as the court finds would serve her best interests. In re Estate of Connor, 254 Mo. 65, 162 S.W. 252; Primeau v. Primeau, 317 Mo. 828, 297 S.W. 382; Young v. Boardman, 97 Mo. 181. (5) In determining whether the provisions of the will are ample, the court should be guided by what would be for the best interests of the widow, taking into consideration that the testator had the right to dispose of his estate by will as he saw fit and as it pleased him. The court should consider the widow's needs, whether such needs are provided for and whether she will have comfortable care, but it should not consider her interest purely from a monetary viewpoint. It should not take into consideration the widow's kinsmen as they have no claim on the testator's bounty. It should, however, consider the disposition made by the will to the testator's kinsmen as they do have a claim on the testator's bounty. In re Estate of Connor, 254 Mo. 65, 162 S.W. 252; Primeau v. Primeau, 17 Mo. 828, 297 S.W. 382; Young v. Boardman, 97 Mo. 181; Williamson v. Nelson, 62 S.W. 59; Van Steenwyck v. Washburn, 59 Wis. 483; Penhallow v. Kimball, 61 N.H. 596.

Neuhoff & Millar for interveners.

(1) Where a deceased husband's will makes provision for his widow inconsistent with, and in lieu of, her statutory rights under Sec. 325, R.S. 1939, she must choose or elect whether she will take under the will or the statute. Mosely v. Bogey, 198 S.W. 847, 272 Mo. 319; Trautz v. Lemp, 46 S.W.2d 135; Sutorius v. Mayor, 170 S.W.2d 387, 350 Mo. 1235; In re Estate of Connor, 254 Mo. 65, 162 S.W. 252; Primeau v. Primeau, 317 Mo. 828, 297 S.W. 382. (2) Where such widow is non compos mentis, a court of equity has the power and duty to examine and pass upon the legality, wisdom and good faith of such an election or choice by her guardian, and to order such election as it finds to the best interests of such widow, or in the absence of any choice or election to likewise make such as it finds to the best interests of such widow. In re Estate of Connor, 254 Mo. 65, 162 S.W. 252; Primeau v. Primeau, 317 Mo. 828, 297 S.W. 382. (3) Under the evidence in this case it is clearly to the widow's best interests to take under the will, and the judgment and decree of the trial court should be sustained. In re Estate of Connor, 254 Mo. 65, 162 S.W. 252; Primeau v. Primeau, 317 Mo. 828, 297 S.W. 382.

OPINION

Douglas, J.

Frank Kunda died leaving only a widow, Louisa Kunda, of unsound mind. Some six years before his death she had suffered from carbon monoxide poisoning and had been of unsound mind from that time on. Shortly after her husband's death she was adjudged insane. Rose Knapp, her sister, is her guardian and the Jefferson-Gravois Bank of St. Louis is her curator.

Frank Kunda left an estate of more than $ 80,000 all in personal property, no real estate. He left no descendants. By his will he gave all his property in trust to the Manufacturers Bank & Trust Company of St. Louis for the benefit of his wife. The trustee was directed to use $ 200 per month for the care of his widow, and so much more as it found necessary for her support, care and personal and physical well being. The provisions for his wife were declared in his will to be in lieu of dower and all other statutory marital rights.

The guardian of Louisa Kunda filed in the probate court a renunciation of the will and an election to take under Section 325, R.S. 1939, which entitles a widow to one-half of her husband's estate if he died without a child or other descendants.

The trustee did not recognize this election, but filed this suit asking instructions of a court of equity as to what course to take for the best interests of the widow. The learned chancellor found it was for the best interest of the widow to take under the will and made such election for her. The widow has appealed. Her guardian also has appealed.

We held in Trautz v. Lemp, 329 Mo. 580, 46 S.W.2d 135 that a widow is required to elect whether she should claim the benefits given her under a will in lieu of her statutory rights or should renounce the will and take under the statutes. This is not the election prescribed by statute but is one required by equity. Or, as we said in Sutorius v. Mayor, 350 Mo. 1235, 170 S.W.2d 387, 171 S.W.2d 69, an election is required between the widow's statutory rights in her husband's property and her testamentary rights in his property under the provisions made for her in his will, but it is an election required in equity and only because the widow may not claim inconsistent rights in her husband's property. (Citing Trautz v. Lemp, supra.) We said: "The will on its face required the election to be made, since it expressly provided that the provisions made therein for his wife should be in lieu of all dower and marital rights in his estate at the time of his death."

We...