Pearson v. Pearson
| Decision Date | 21 April 1981 |
| Docket Number | No. 13206,13206 |
| Citation | 312 N.W.2d 34 |
| Parties | Lester PEARSON, Clara Pearson and Harold Pearson, Plaintiffs and Appellees, v. Everett PEARSON, Defendant and Appellant, and Nancy Painter, James Pearson, Marilyn Pearson, Kathryn V. Pearson, and SiouxFalls Production Credit Association, Defendants. . Considered on Briefs |
| Court | South Dakota Supreme Court |
Wilson M. Kleibacker, Jr., of Lammers, Lammers, Kleibacker & Casey, Madison, for plaintiffs and appellees.
John P. Abbott of Abbott & Abbott, Brandon, for defendant and appellant; Caryl H. Abbott Brandon, on the brief.
This is an appeal from an amended judgment in a partition action. We affirm.
Henning Pearson, the father of appellees Lester and Harold Pearson and appellant, Everett Pearson, died on December 2, 1968. Thereafter, Everett Pearson was appointed administrator with will annexed of his father's estate. Controversy arose among the brothers concerning Everett's final account and petition for distribution, culminating in an order dated December 20, 1971, revoking Everett's letters of administration, discharging him as administrator, and appointing a new administrator. On June 7, 1972, the district county court entered an order relating to Everett's final report that decreed, among other things, that Everett was indebted to the estate in the amount of $3,648.80 for rental of real estate belonging to the estate for the years 1969, 1970, and 1971.
On June 23, 1975, the circuit court 1 entered a final decree providing in part that in addition to the rental owed the estate for 1969, 1970, and 1971, Everett was further indebted to the estate in the amount of $1,350 for rent for 1972 and 1973. The decree also provided that Everett owed Lester and Harold each the sum of $177.70 as rent for the year 1974. No appeal was taken from either the June 1972 order or the final decree. 2
In January of 1976 Lester and Harold commenced a partition action regarding the interest in the real estate that they and Everett had inherited from their father's estate. On May 22, 1980, the circuit court entered findings that, based upon the 1972 order and the 1975 decree, Everett did indeed owe his father's estate the $3,648.80 and the $1,350 found due and owing by those earlier adjudications. The trial court further found that Everett owed Lester and Harold each the sum of $177.70 for 1974 rent for the use of certain of the estate property. An amended judgment creating a lien upon Everett's share of the partitioned property was entered on June 12, 1980. It is from this amended judgment that Everett appeals.
Everett contends that because he was never served with a summons in the estate proceedings the district county court was without jurisdiction to adjudge him to be indebted to the estate and to his brothers. He argues that the circuit court's judgment must also necessarily be held to be invalid to the extent that it was based upon the district county court's order and the circuit court's decree. We do not agree.
We recently reaffirmed the long-standing rule that the failure to issue, file, or serve a summons deprives a court of jurisdiction. Deno v. Oveson, 307 N.W.2d 862 (S.D.1981). That rule is not controlling in the instant case, however, for this Court has held that a court having jurisdiction over the administration of an estate is vested with the authority to determine the amount of indebtedness due from an heir to an estate and to deduct that amount from the heir's distributive share.
In the process of administration it is entirely just and equitable that any indebtedness due from an heir to the estate should first be deducted from any distributive share to which he might otherwise be entitled, and that, in reality, he is only entitled on any principle of justice or equity to whatever balance there...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Phipps Bros. Inc. v. Nelson's Oil and Gas, Inc.
...the burden of proving infringement. Sun Banks, 651 F.2d at 315; see In re Estate of Armstrong, 400 N.W.2d 267 (S.D.1987); Pearson v. Pearson, 312 N.W.2d 34 (S.D.1981). The test of whether there is a substantial likelihood of confusion among consumers requires the court to consider numerous ......
-
Azcon Const. Co., Inc. v. Golden Hills Resort, Inc.
...to show by the record that error has been committed. Matter of Estate of Armstrong, 400 N.W.2d 267, 268-69 (S.D.1987); Pearson v. Pearson, 312 N.W.2d 34, 36 (S.D.1981); Custer County Bd. of Educ. v. State Comm'n on Educ., 86 S.D. 215, 193 N.W.2d 586, 589 (1972). The same burden of proof is ......
-
Voelker v. Voelker, 18123
...best interests to stay with Mother. This finding is presumed correct and this court will not seek reasons to reverse. Pearson v. Pearson, 312 N.W.2d 34 (S.D.1981). Both parties have faults which obviously made awarding custody a difficult decision. This is commonly encountered by our trial ......
-
Estate of Armstrong, Matter of
...to seek reasons to reverse. * Appellant has the burden to affirmatively show by the record that error has been committed. Pearson v. Pearson, 312 N.W.2d 34 (S.D.1981); Crook v. Pap, 303 N.W.2d 818 (S.D.1981); Cuka v. Jamesville Hutterian Mut. Soc., 294 N.W.2d 419 (S.D.1980); Lytle v. Morgan......