Meyer v. Rogers
Decision Date | 07 June 1952 |
Docket Number | No. 38415,38415 |
Parties | MEYER v. ROGERS et al. |
Court | Kansas Supreme Court |
Syllabus by the Court.
In an action by an alleged recognized illegitimate daughter of a deceased beneficiary of a trust created by the will and codicil of a nonresident decedent for a determination of her rights under the terms of the trust and for an accounting of the rents and profits from the Kansas real estate owned by the trust estate, the record is examined and it is held: Insofar as the Kansas real estate is concerned the determination of all questions involved is governed by the law of this state. Further held: (1) The finding that plaintiff is the recognized illegitimate child of the deceased beneficiary of the trust is supported by substantial competent evidence; (2) plaintiff is not barred from bringing the action by laches or any statute of limitations; (3) the action is not a 'will contest'; (4) the judgment of the district court of Gray County, Kansas, in 1945, that the will and codicil do not violate the rule against perpetuities, is res judicata on the question; and (5) plaintiff is a 'child' of her deceased father within the meaning of the will and codicil and as such is entitled (all as more fully set out in the opinion) to an accounting of the rents and profits from the Kansas real estate.
W. C. Gould, of Dodge City (R. R. Mitchell, of Dodge City, and Hal M. Stone, of Bloomington, Ill., on the briefs), for appellants.
W. A. Kahrs and Keith L. Wallis, both of Wichita (Robert H. Nelson and Clarence N. Holeman, both of Wichita, and Chesterman C. Linley, of Cimarron, and E. C. Minner, of Dodge City, on the briefs), for appellee.
This was an action brought under the declaratory judgment act by Mildred Meyer, appellee (hereinafter referred to as plaintiff), the alleged recognized illegitimate daughter of one Vesper Warner (hereinafter referred to as Vesper), to determine her rights as a beneficiary of and for an accounting of her alleged interest in the rents and profits from real estate situated in Kansas which is a part of a trust estate created by the provisions of a last will and testament and codicil thereto of Clifton H. Moore (hereinafter referred to as the testator) who died a resident of DeWitt County, Illinois.
Appellants (hereinafter referred to as defendants) are the surviving beneficiaries of the trust, together with the acting trustees thereof. None of them ever lived in Kansas.
Another phase of litigation involving this trust estate has been before this court previously and will be found in the opinion of In re Estate of Moore, 161 Kan. 603, 170 P.2d 838, and on rehearing at 163 Kan. 147, 181 P.2d 299. Whatever was said in those opinions which throws light on the historical factual background of the matter now before us is by reference incorporated herein. The instant action was commenced on June 12, 1947.
The testator, a resident of Illinois, executed his last will and testament in 1888. At that time he had two children, Arthur Moore and Winifred Moore Warner. After making a number of bequests to friends and relatives, item twelve of the will provided:
* * *'
The daughter Winifred died in 1894, survived by her husband Vespasian and five children--three sons and two daughters--among them being Vesper, the alleged father of plaintiff.
Shortly after the death of his daughter Winifred the testator executed a codicil to his will which, among other things, provided:
The testator died on April 29, 1901, survived by his wife Rose, his son Arthur, and his five grandchildren who were the children of his prior deceased daughter Winifred. The will and codicil were duly admitted to probate in DeWitt County, Illinois. We are not concerned with the rights, if any, of the testator's widow in the estate. She died in 1907. Arthur, the son, died in November, 1901, without issue or the issue of any prior deceased issue. His wife survived him by serveral years, but we are in no way concerned with her rights, if any, under the will and codicil.
It will thus be seen that upon the death of Arthur the immediate beneficiaries of the trust created were the five living children of Winifred, they being grandchildren of the testator.
Included in the trust estate were in excess of 12,000 acres of real estate situated in Gray County, Kansas. The will and codicil were duly recorded in the probate court of that county some time between November 9, 1905, and April 9, 1906. The land in Gray County has been held intact, is still a part of the estate, and has been operated over the years by the trustees acting under the jurisdiction of the Illinois court.
Prior to the trial of this action the parties entered into certain stipulations at a pretrial conference. Among them were that plaintiff is an illegitimate child; that she was born on January 24, 1902; that no children were born as the result of the marriage of Vesper and Ella May Johnston which occurred on May 29, 1901; that all proceeds of the trust estate in Gray County have been paid to the trustees, to the exclusion of plaintiff, and that she has received nothing from the estate.
At the conclusion of the trial the court made extensive conclusions of fact and of law. A number of the former are recitals of formal matters heretofore referred to and will not be repeated.
Among other things, and concerning which there is no dispute, the court found that of the five grandchildren of the testator (they being the children of his prior deceased daughter Winifred), Clifton M. Warner, Mary Frances Crist and Winifred Warner Rogers are living, and that the other two, John Warner II and Vesper, are deceased, the latter having died on April 10, 1912, intestate, leaving surviving him his widow, Ella May Johnston Warner, she having died since the filing of the action. We are not concerned with what rights, if any, she may have had under the will and codicil.
The court further found that plaintiff was the illegitimate daughter of Goldendine Baker (hereinafter referred to as Goldie) and Vesper; that Vesper recognized plaintiff as his child, and that such recognition was general and notorious as contemplated by G.S.1935, 22-122, and G.S.1949, 59-501.
As conclusions of law the court held, among other things, that the will and codicil violate the rule against perpetuities in that the attempt to vest an estate in the great-grandchildren of the testator was too remote; that the finding and judgment of the district court of Gray County rendered in November, 1945, in another proceeding, to the effect that the will and codicil did not violate the rule against...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Andrean v. Secretary of US Army, 93-2172-JWL.
...in another case. Federated Department Stores v. Moitie, 452 U.S. 394, 101 S.Ct. 2424, 69 L.Ed.2d 103 (1981); Meyer v. Rogers, 173 Kan. 124, 244 P.2d 1169, 1174 (1952). 13 Defendants argue that Matter of Marriage of Morton, 11 Kan.App.2d 473, 726 P.2d 297 (1986) applies here. Morton, however......
-
Rathbun v. Hill
...148 Kan. 527, 532, 533, 83 P.2d 795; Bayless v. Wheeler-Kelly-Hagny Trust Co., 153 Kan. 81, 88, 89, 109 P.2d 108; Meyer v. Rogers, 173 Kan. 124, 130, 244 P.2d 1169; Murray v. Brown, 177 Kan. 139, 140, 141, 276 P.2d 344; and Commercial National Bank of Kansas City v. Martin, 185 Kan. 116, 34......
-
Woolums v. Simonsen
...in which it is situated. (Riemann v. Riemann, 124 Kan 539, 262 P. 16; Hanson v. Hoffman, 150 Kan. 121, 91 P.2d 31; and Mayer v. Rogers, 173 Kan. 124, 244 P.2d 1169.) A United States Supreme Court decision recognizing this rule is Clarke v. Clarke, 178 U.S. 186, 20 S.Ct. 873, 44 L.Ed. An ado......
-
E.G.S. v. Sonnier
...that Larson notoriously recognized his paternity of E.G.S. is supported by substantial competent evidence. See, e.g., Meyer v. Rogers, 173 Kan. 124, 128–29, 244 P.2d 1169(1952) (evidence supported district court's finding that alleged father had generally and notoriously recognized his pate......