McAndrews v. Krause

• Decision Date: 10 June 1955
• Docket Number: No. 36485,36485
• Citation: 245 Minn. 85,71 N.W.2d 153,53 A.L.R.2d 312
• Parties: , 53 A.L.R.2d 312 Rosalia L. McANDREWS and Anna L. Haagensen, Appellants, v. Armenia L. KRAUSE et al., Respondents.
• Court: Minnesota Supreme Court

Page 153

71 N.W.2d 153

245 Minn. 85, 53 A.L.R.2d 312

Rosalia L. McANDREWS and Anna L. Haagensen, Appellants, v. Armenia L. KRAUSE et al., Respondents.

No. 36485.

Supreme Court of Minnesota.

June 10, 1955.

On Clerk's Taxation of Costs

July 1, 1955.

SYLLABUS BY THE COURT.

1. As a general rule, a foreign representative in his capacity as representative of an estate may not be sued in any jurisdiction outside of the state in which he was appointed. There is an exception to the rule, however, when under certain circumstances assets are within the forum's jurisdiction and the action is of an equitable nature.

2. In action to impose a constructive trust upon certain real and personal properties held by the decedent, a resident of Iowa, in which the two coexecutors of decedent's domiciliary estate in Iowa were joined with residents of Minnesota as party-defendants and one of said coexecutors was a resident of Minnesota and had been duly served in this state with a copy of the summons and complaint therein and where there were substantial assets within Minnesota over which such constructive trust was sought to be imposed, Held that the district court acquired personal jurisdiction over the resident coexecutor of decedent's domiciliary estate insofar as the property located in Minnesota is concerned and that the district court erred in granting his motion to dismiss said action as to him as coexecutor of decedent's domiciliary estate for lack of jurisdiction.

3. With respect to real or personal property located outside of Minnesota, Held that the district court's jurisdiction could not be sustained since to do so would constitute an unnecessary encroachment upon the domiciliary probate functions of the Iowa court thereby going in direct contravention to one of the main purposes for the general rule that suits against foreign representatives should not be entertained, that is, that an executor should be subject to one master--the domicile--rather than many masters who might issue inconsistent and onerous commands. Consequently, the district court properly granted said resident defendant's motion to dismiss the action for lack of jurisdiction as to him in his capacity as ancillary representative of decedent's estate in Nebraska and North Dakota.

4. Where an action in the nature of an in rem proceeding is brought with respect to assets in this state and said assets are in the possession of a resident special administrator duly appointed and qualified in ancillary proceedings brought in this state for the probate of decedent's Minnesota estate, Held that the local special administrator of said estate was an indispensable party to such an action and that the in rem phase of the present action must be dismissed for failure to join said special administrator as a party thereto. Consequently, even if it be assumed that jurisdiction was acquired over the nonresident coexecutor of decedent's domiciliary estate by service by publication under Rule 4.04(4) of Rules of Civil Procedure, the district court did not err in granting the motion to dismiss the action as to him for failure to join an indispensable party.

Plunkett & Plunkett, Austin, for appellants.

Allen & Delaney, Rochester, Miller & Pearson, Decorah, Iowa, F. J. O'Brien, Rochester, for respondents.

CHRISTIANSON, Justice.

Action is brought by plaintiffs, Rosalia L. McAndrews and Anna L. Haagensen, in the Olmsted county district court to impose a constructive trust upon certain real estate located in North Dakota, Nebraska, and Iowa and upon personal property presently in the state of Minnesota. All of the above property was in the name of decedent, LuRene L. Lamm, a resident of Iowa, at the time of her death in Rochester, Minnesota. The present litigation arises out of the purported last will and testament of said decedent, which gives an estimated estate of $260,000 to the defendant Maxwell Krause. The case is here on an appeal from an order granting, in part, a motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction.

The gist of the action as set forth in the complaint is that the deceased, LuRene L. Lamm, failed to comply with an agreement allegedly made between herself and her mother, Anna Marguerite Lamm, who predeceased her, whereby the mother executed deeds to the real estate in question to LuRene L. Lamm on condition that she hold in trust for plaintiffs, her sisters, an undivided two-thirds interest in the lands and accumulations therefrom and pay over and transfer the properties when the best interests of said sisters would be served thereby. Allegedly it was also agreed that should LuRene L. Lamm fail to make such transfers during her lifetime she would do so in her last will and testament. She failed to do either, although starting with the year 1946 she began making a partial distribution of accomulations therefrom up to the amount of $10,781.54.

Following the death of the decedent the defendant Maxwell Krause, a resident of Minnesota, who is the residuary beneficiary under decedent's purported last will and testament and named as executor therein, filed a copy of the will in the states of North Dakota, Nebraska, and Iowa, in which states the real property is situated. The Iowa court appointed Julian Moe, a resident of Iowa, as coexecutor of the will in that state and an effort has been made to join him as a defendant in this action. Plaintiffs are presently contesting the will in Iowa and have appealed from a North Dakota probate court order allowing the will in that state. The Nebraska probate court has stayed all proceedings pending a determination of the will contest in Iowa.

Accumulations from the various properties were invested in a variety of securities by LuRene L. Lamm commencing in the year 1940 and as a result the net income from the lands together with the interest and dividends from the investments totaled $106,239.65 at the time of her death. At the present time these funds are in the hands of the Olmsted County Bank & Trust Company of Rochester, Minnesota, which bank has been appointed special administrator of the estate of LuRene L. Lamm, deceased, in the state of Minnesota. The bank was not made a party to this suit.

This action was commenced against the coexecutors, Maxwell Krause and Julian Moe, as representatives of the estate in Iowa and against the same Maxwell Krause as representative of the estate in Nebraska and North Dakota. The action was also brought against Maxwell Krause, individually and as residuary beneficiary under the will, his wife Lorraine Krause individually and as the wife of Maxwell Krause, and against Armenia L. Krause, a sister of plaintiffs and the deceased LuRene L. Lamm, as one of the three sole surviving heirs of said decedent. The defendant Armenia Krause, in addition to answering, also cross-claimed and in so doing admitted substantially the allegations of the complaint but alleged that the properties were to be held in trust by LuRene L. Lamm not only for plaintiffs but also for her--thus claiming that the assets should be divided into four parts rather than three.

Following the commencement of the action a garnishee summons was issued by plaintiffs and served upon the Olmsted County Bank & Trust Company. A copy of the garnishment summons and notice was also served upon the defendants. The garnishee bank in a garnishment disclosure revealed that it had in its possession personal property totaling $106,239.65 belonging to the estate of LuRene L. Lamm, deceased.

Thereafter the defendants, except for the cross complaint, Armenia Krause, moved to dismiss the original complaint and the cross claim on the grounds, among others, (1) that the court lacked jurisdiction over the defendants' person; (2) that the court had no jurisdiction of the defendants, Maxwell Krause and Julian Moe, as coexecutors of the estate of LuRene L. Lamma as appointed by the district court in Iowa; (3) that the court had no jurisdiction of Maxwell Krause as executor of the estate in North Dakota and Nebraska; and (4) that the Olmsted County Bank & Trust Company was an indispensable party and was not joined as a defendant.

After argument on the motion the district court ordered that as to jurisdiction over the defendants Maxwell Krause and Lorraine Krause, as individuals, the motion be denied, but granted the motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction over Julian Moe and Maxwell Krause as executors and representatives of the estate. Plaintiffs thereafter made a motion to vacate and set aside the order as to the defendants Moe and Krause in their representative capacities. At the hearing on plaintiffs' motion to vacate, the district court granted the defendants' motion to dismiss plaintiffs' motion on the grounds that it was improper and unauthorized under Rule 7.02 of the Rules of Civil Procedure. Plaintiffs appeal from both the order granting the dismissal because of lack of jurisdiction over the defendants as representatives of the estate and the order denying the motion to vacate. Since a decision on the granting of the first motion will render moot the questions raised by the denial of the second, we will consider this case as an appeal from the first order only.

1. The first issue to be resolved is whether the district court acquired jurisdiction over Maxwell Krause, the resident coexecutor of the estate, through personal service of the summons and complaint upon him. The defendants-respondents contend that, because Krause was appointed coexecutor by the Iowa court and because he was not performing representative functions in this state, the Minnesota court cannot obtain jurisdiction over him. As a general rule, a foreign representative in his capacity as representative of an estate may not be sued in any jurisdiction outside of the state in which he was appointed. See, E.g., Farnsworth v. Hubbard, 78 Ariz. 160, 277 P.2d 252; Estate of Paine v. Garnett, 128 Fla. 151, 174 So. 430; 21 Am.Jur., Executors and Administrators,...