Reed v. Reed
| Decision Date | 03 March 1908 |
| Citation | 68 A. 849,80 Conn. 401 |
| Court | Connecticut Supreme Court |
| Parties | REED et al. v. REED. |
Appeal from Superior Court, Hartford County; Howard J. Curtis, Judge.
Accounting of Carrie S. Reed, executrix of George W. M. Reed, deceased. From a decree of the superior court, setting aside in part a decree of the court of probate allowing the account, and restating the account, the executrix appeals. Reversed in part, and remanded.
The will, which was admitted to probate in 1901, gave "the use, income, and improvement" of all the residuary property to Carrie S. Reed, the testator's widow, "during her natural life, with the privilege of expending from time to time so much of the principal of said estate as she may find necessary for her comfortable support and maintenance," with remainder, upon her death, to his brother and nephews and nieces. Mrs. Reed was appointed executrix, no bond to be required of her as such, and given, as such, power to sell and convey any and all of his real estate. The estate of the testator was wholly in personal property. After paying debts and charges there remained as the residuary estate, as shown by her administration account filed in the court of probate in September, 1903, nothing but 550 shares of guaranteed preferred stock in the Pratt & Whitney Company. This was an unusually good investment stock, worth more than par. and yielding an assured annual income of $3,300. The executrix sold 220 of the shares, and at the time of the hearing of this appeal in the superior court the estate in her hands consisted of the remaining 330 shares, $5,000 in cash, and a house in Tariffville, which she had bought in her name, as executrix, for $4,275, and was worth not over $4,000. The balance of the estate Mrs. Reed had used for her own purposes, after having been advised that she had the right so to use it, and in the belief that she could use it at will. There was no reason whatever for the use of any of the principal of the estate for her support. It was not necessary for her comfortable support and maintenance. The income of the residuary estate, after deducting from it a reasonable compensation for her services as executrix, was sufficient to provide liberally for all her needs in a manner suitable to her condition in life and previous habits and style of living. The account allowed by the court of probate shefiled in July, 1906. A few weeks before she had caused the entire estate then remaining in her hands to be transferred into the name of one Ranney, a young man who had been several times convicted of larceny, for the purpose of turning it into cash through him, and making a reinvestment in shares of a joint-stock corporation, engaged in trade, which it would not have been wise or proper to purchase as an investment of the estate. She took Ranney's note for the value of the house, secured by a mortgage upon it, which she had recorded a month later, and he indorsed the certificates for the shares in the Pratt & Whitney Company in blank, and left them with her, with his note for their value. Ranney, in fact, negotiated a sale of 100 shares of the Pratt & Whitney Company, delivered the certificate to the purchaser, received his check for the price, and indorsed it over to the executrix; but a transfer was stopped by an injunction procured by the remaindermen.
The reasons of appeal filed in the superior court set up, among other things, that (9) the residuary estate "yielded an income much larger than that which the said Carrie S. Reed had enjoyed during the life of her said deceased husband, the testator, and said income was more than sufficient for the comfortable maintenance and support of said Carrie S. Reed without using any portion of the principal of said estate; (10) said Carrie S. Reed, acting as executrix of said estate, has paid to herself as life tenant, in addition to the entire income, large portions of the principal of said estate not needed for her comfortable support and maintenance, and has used such payments for purposes other than for her comfortable support and maintenance;" and that (18) "said Carrie S. Reed is a wholly unsuitable, unfit, and improper person in whose possession and control to leave said estate, and said Carrie S. Reed is neglecting the duties of executrix or trustee of said estate, and is wasting the estate in her charge." In the answer filed by Mrs. Reed in the superior court the reasons above set forth were denied, and it was averred that, "since the death of the said George W. M. Reed and the appointment of said Carrie S. Reed as executrix of her husband's estate, she has not lived in a more expensive manner than she did during the lifetime of her husband, but, on the contrary, has curtailed her expenses and her mode of living very materially and to a large amount, and all the money used or expended by her from the principal of said estate has been so used and expended for her comfortable support and maintenance, as she had a right to do under the will of her husband." After a hearing on the issues closed the superior court, by an interlocutory judgment, ordered the executrix to file in that court an amended account, which she accordingly did. In the final judgment the issues were found for those appealing from the decree of probate, and all their reasons of appeal were specially found true. The superior court also found that "the defendant has been unduly wasteful in the management of said estate," and "has no property of her own, and is not financially responsible"; that "the defendant is not a fit or suitable person to be left in charge of said estate, unless proper and sufficient security is furnished to the remaindermen thereof"; and that "it is for the best interests of the defendant as well as the remaindermen that the defendant be restrained from using any of the principal of said estate." The final judgment set aside the decree of probate, "except so much thereof as refused to remove the executrix"; ordered her as executrix to transfer to herself as life tenant under the will all the personal estate in her hands as executrix, upon her filing, within a reasonable time to be set by the court of probate, a probate bond for its safe keeping and delivery to the remaindermen at her decease; in default of such a bond directed the court of probate to appoint a trustee to receive and manage the estate during her life, to whom, in that case, she was ordered to deliver it; restated the account of the executrix filed in pursuance of the interlocutory judgment, striking out several of the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Rand v. McKittrick
...Mo. 641, 98 S.W.2d 699; Perry on Trusts, sec. 456; Mattocks v. Moulton, 84 Me. 545, 24 A. 1004; King v. Talbot, 40 N.Y. 76; Reed v. Reed, 80 Conn. 401, 68 A. 849; White Sherman, 168 Ill. 589, 48 N.E. 128; Tucker v. State, 72 Ind. 242; In re Allis' Estate, 123 Wis. 223, 101 N.W. 365; Hemphil......
-
St. Louis Union Trust Co. v. Toberman
... ... S.W.2d 662; State v. Pub. Serv. Comm., 339 Mo. 641, ... 98 S.W.2d 699; Mattocks v. Moulton, 84 Me. 545, 24 ... A. 1004; Reed v. Reed (1908), 80 Conn. 401, 68 A ... 849; White v. Sherman (1897), 168 Ill. 589, 48 N.E ... 128; Tucker v. State (1880), 72 Ind. 242; In ... ...
-
Silverstein v. Silverstein, No. CV 04-0083699 S (CT 2/24/2005), CV 04-0083699 S
...in defending the appeals from the 1994 Probate Court decision. Such expenses are an appropriate charge to the estate. Reed v. Reed, Executrix, 80 Conn. 401, 410 (1908). Based on the evidence presented the court cannot determine, however, that the sale is in the best interest of the parties.......
-
Ewing v. Ruml
...197 Conn. at 48, 495 A.2d 1034; see also Jackson v. Conland, supra, 178 Conn. at 55 & n. 3, 420 A.2d 898 (1979); Reed v. Reed, 80 Conn. 401, 409-10, 68 A. 849 (1908); Conn.Gen.Stat.Ann. § 45-88 (West Supp.1989). In such circumstances, courts may hold the fiduciary liable only where it abuse......