O'Mealey v. Grum

• Decision Date: 06 February 1940
• Docket Number: Case Number: 29449
• Citation: 1940 OK 69,186 Okla. 697,100 P.2d 265
• Parties: O'MEALEY, Adm'r, v. GRUM
• Court: Oklahoma Supreme Court

1940 OK 69

100 P.2d 265

186 Okla. 697

O'MEALEY, Adm'r, v. GRUM

Case Number: 29449

Supreme Court of Oklahoma

Decided: February 6, 1940

Syllabus

¶0 1. INSANE PERSONS--Necessary services rendered to incompetent under verbal agreement with guardian a proper charge against estate.

Services rendered to an incompetent under a verbal agreement with his guardian, without prior approval by the county court, are a proper charge against the estate of the incompetent when such services are necessary to the proper care and maintenance of the incompetent.

2. EXECUTORS AND ADMINISTRATORS--Claim for services rendered insane ward by agreement with guardian properly filed with administrator of ward's estate after his death.

Upon the death of a ward the rights and duties of a guardian cease, except the duty to make a final settlement of his guardianship accounts, and a claim for compensation for services rendered the ward prior to his death, by agreement with the guardian, may properly be filed with the administrator of his estate, where the value of the services had not been agreed upon, and no claim therefor filed with the guardian, prior to the death of the ward.

3. SAME-- Evidence overcoming presumption that services rendered by member of insane ward's family were gratuitous.

Where plaintiff, a member of an insane ward's family, by agreement with his guardian, performs necessary services for such ward, and there is evidence tending to prove that the guardian had promised, and the plaintiff expected, payment therefor, such evidence is sufficient to overcome the presumption that the services were gratuitous, and to require submission to the jury.

4. SAME--Instruction held correct which ignored fact that agreement for rendition of services was not approved by county court.

Instruction examined, and held correct.

Appeal from District Court, Grant County; J. W. Bird, Judge.

Action by Thomas Grum against Edwin H. O'Mealey, administrator of estate of R. L. O'Mealey. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendant appeals. Affirmed.

Falkenberg, Curran & Falkenberg, of Medford, for plaintiff in error.

Breeden & Breeden, of Medford, for defendant in error.

HURST, J.

¶1 Plaintiff Grum filed a claim against the estate of R. L. O'Mealey, deceased, for services rendered by plaintiff to the deceased. Prior to his death the deceased had been declared incompetent, and the services were alleged to have been rendered pursuant to an oral contract with, or authorization by, his guardian. Defendant rejected the claim, and plaintiff thereupon brought this action under section 1239, O. S. 1931, 58 Okla. St. Ann. § 339. The trial court overruled defendant's demurrer to plaintiff's petition, demurrer to the evidence, and motion for a directed verdict, and rendered judgment for plaintiff on a verdict of the jury in his favor. Defendant appeals. The evidence, briefly stated, showed that the deceased was 94 years of age at the time of his death. For several years he had been almost entirely without mental capacity, although fairly strong physically. The wife of plaintiff, who was a daughter of deceased, was employed by the guardian to care for deceased as a housekeeper under a contract approved by the county court. It soon developed that deceased needed more attention, in a personal way, than she could give him and take care of the household duties. She and plaintiff were at that time living in the home of deceased. The guardian advised Mrs. Grum, in the presence of plaintiff, that the task was too great for her, and told her to get help, and he would see that it was paid for. He told plaintiff to take care of deceased and he would get his pay, and that the attorney for the pension department (deceased drew a pension as a Civil War veteran) said if it took the whole $100 a month pension to take care of him, to pay it. From that time on, being the period for which plaintiff claims compensation, plaintiff spent the greater part of his time looking after the deceased. There is no denial that he was faithful and efficient in the performance of his duties, or that the compensation claimed by him was excessive. That the services were necessary, and that they were rendered by plaintiff, is not seriously questioned.

1. Defendant's first contention is that a contract made by a guardian must have the prior approval of the county court in order to bind the estate of the ward, and that since plaintiff's contract did not have such approval, the estate is not liable thereon. In support of this assertion, he calls attention to Jones v. Johnson (1919) 72 Okla. 132, 178 P. 984, 21 A.L.R. 903; Williarn Cameron & Co., Inc., v. Yarby et al. (1918) 71 Okla. 79, 175 P. 206, and Aubrey's Estate v. De Lozier (1927) 128 Okla. 79, 261 P. 192, and to the general rule stated in 12 R.C.L. 1128. Plaintiff does not question the correctness of the rule announced in these authorities, but says that the services performed by him were necessaries, for which the estate was liable under section 9402, O. S. 1931, 15 Okla. St. Ann. § 22, which provides that a person entirely without understanding may not make a contract of any kind, but is liable for the reasonable value of things furnished him necessary to his support, and that therefore the contract under which the necessary services were furnished constitutes an exception to the general rule urged by defendant.

¶2 We are of the opinion that the position taken by the plaintiff is the correct one and is in accord with our decisions. Evans v. Harris (1916) 60 Okla. 27, 158 P. 898; Cotner v. Lon Jacobs Grocery Co. (1921) 84 Okla. 1, 202 P. 997; Pruitt v. Pilgreen (1936) 178 Okla. 608, 64 P.2d 263. See, also, Bancroft's Probate Practice, sec. 1331; 28 C. J. 1114; Re Mires' Estate (Minn. 1916) 160 N. W. 187, L.R.A. 1917B, 676 and note. The rule deducible from these authorities is that the guardian may make a contract for necessities for the ward...