Schneeberger v. Frazer

• Decision Date: 03 March 1923
• Citation: 36 Idaho 737,213 P. 568
• Parties: CELIA SCHNEEBERGER, Admx., Appellant, v. R. S. FRAZER, Administrator, Respondent
• Court: Idaho Supreme Court

213 P. 568

36 Idaho 737

CELIA SCHNEEBERGER, Admx., Appellant, v. R. S. FRAZER, Administrator, Respondent

Supreme Court of Idaho

March 3, 1923

ESTATE OF DECEASED PERSONS-CLAIMS AGAINST-PAYMENT-ADMINISTRATORS-CONTINUATION OF BUSINESS OF DECEASED.

1. An administrator or executor has no authority to pay claims against the estate of which he has charge except when they are presented within the time and in the manner required by law. If he pays in disregard of the requirements of the law he may be required to make good to the estate all sums so illegally paid out.

2. An administrator is not required to continue the business of the deceased. If he does so he assumes responsibility for all losses incurred and must account for any profits so earned.

3. An administrator or executor should be held to the duty of guarding with the utmost fidelity the interests of the heirs of the estate in his hands.

APPEAL from the District Court of the Fourth Judicial District, for Jerome County. Hon. H. F. Ensign, Judge.

Action protesting account of administrator of estate. From judgment for defendant, plaintiff appeals. Reversed, with directions to district court to enter judgment in behalf of appellant.

Judgment reversed. Costs awarded to appellant.

Bissell & Bird and W. T. Stafford, for Appellant.

An administrator has no authority to pay a claim against the estate until such claim has been approved and allowed by the probate court. (C. S., secs. 7584, 7713; Walton v Channel, 34 Idaho 532, 204 P. 661.)

A claim presented against an estate after the expiration of the statutory period therefor is a nullity and can be given no legal effect. (Lundy v. Lemp, 32 Idaho 162, 179 P 738; First Sec. & Loan Co. v. Englehart, 107 Wash. 86, 181 P. 13.)

The probate court and administrator have no jurisdiction or power to allow or pay a claim against an estate if such claim is over $ 20 and not accompanied by the statutory affidavit. (C. S., secs. 7582, 7701; Worley v. Hineman (Ind. App.), 29 N.E. 570; McWhorter v. Donald, 39 Miss. 779, 80 Am. Dec. 97; Clancey v. Clancey, 7. N. M. 405, 37 P. 1105; Dillabough v. Brady, 115 Wash. 76, 196 P. 627; Ullman Company v. Adler, 59 Mont. 232, 196 P. 157; Langrell v. Wright, 2 Boyce (Del.), 311, 80 A. 235; Carpenter & Co. v. Naftel, 203 Ala. 487, 83 So. 471; Harding v. Ballard, 172 Ky. 416, 189 S.W. 242.)

An administrator who procures his appointment by the waiver of those with prior rights thereto, which waiver is obtained by the admitted agreement of the administrator not to charge an administrator's fee, cannot charge such fee. (In re Sullivan's Estate, 36 Wash. 217, 78 P. 945; C. S., sec. 7487.)

Walters, Parry & Bailey and Paul S. Haddock, for Respondent.

Our statutes provide for certain technical procedure in regard to the filing and allowance of claims against an estate which refer exclusively to the claims of and against the deceased and the closing up of the estate business. Said laws, however, do not apply to the accounts which grow out of continuing to conduct the business left by the deceased. (2 Church's Probate Law and Practice, 2d ed., pp. 1513-1515; In re Rose's Estate, 80 Cal. 166, 22 P. 86.)

DUNN, J. McCarthy, J., concurs, Budge, C. J., concurs in the conclusion.

OPINION

DUNN, J.

This case grows out of an attempt to settle up in the probate court of Jerome county the estate of Joseph Schneeberger, deceased, who died February 4, 1913.

Respondent was appointed administrator of said estate and in response to a citation of the probate court requiring him to show cause why he should not submit his final account as administrator he filed, on February 17, 1917, what appears to be his final account. Appellant, who had been appointed administratrix to succeed respondent, filed a protest against a large number of the items embraced in said account and respondent filed his answer thereto, in which he alleged that all of the matters contained in said protest relative to said estate had theretofore been determined by decree of the probate court settling the account of said administrator filed on December 11, 1914, and by the settlement of a subsequent account filed April 1, 1916; that each and all of the other objections raised by the said appellant refer to transactions which were no part of the administration of said estate by respondent, and that in addition to his duties as administrator of the said estate "he did during the latter part of the year 1914 and during the years 1915, 16 and 17, conduct the business of the said Jos. Schneeberger, deceased, and that each and all of the items received by him and each and all of the items paid out by him have been duly submitted to the court in the above-entitled action, and that by reason of his conducting said business the property of said estate has been greatly enhanced in value and that there has been no loss, either by reason of his actions as administrator of said estate or by reason of his action and management of the business affairs of the property of the said Jos. Schneeberger, deceased." He prayed that said protest be dismissed and that his reports stand approved.

Hearing was had before the probate court with the result that said probate court refused to approve said final account and entered an order and decree that respondent had paid out $ 7,387.72 without authority of law; that he had illegally retained certain commissions as administrator and had not accounted for certain other sums of money belonging to said estate, all of which he was required to repay to said estate. From this decree and order of the probate court respondent appealed to the district court where the matter was tried anew and judgment rendered in favor of the respondent, from which judgment appellant has brought the case here on appeal.

The assignments of error all go to the improper allowance of claims against the estate.

It is somewhat difficult, if not impossible, on this record to reconcile the contentions and the acts of respondent with reference to his accounts as administrator. It seems inconsistent for the respondent to file the account that he did file in response to the citation and at the same time deny that it is his final account as administrator and deny the jurisdiction of the probate court to consider said account and finally pass upon it. Yet that is the position he takes. He says in his brief:

"If the heirs feel that the administrator has failed to honestly account to the estate for the profits made or if he fails to make good the losses they may proceed against him in a civil action as in any other case of fraud and in such an action each of the items and all of his accounts of the business which he conducted can be probed and examined but such an investigation cannot be made in this kind of an action. Therefore neither the probate court nor the appellate courts to which the action is appealed can audit or inquire into any of such accounts."

We are not prepared to accept this declaration of respondent as sound law. However we may regard the jurisdiction of the probate court to pass upon this report filed February 17, 1917, we think there can be no question that when respondent took the matter by appeal to the district court and tried it out there, he was then in a court with jurisdiction to settle all the questions that could be raised with regard to that account, whether it be regarded as a final account of the administration of respondent or an account of his transactions as manager of the business of the deceased. If resort were had to an independent action on behalf of the heirs it could be brought in the district court, so that when respondent took the controversy there by appeal he submitted it to a court that had jurisdiction of the subject matter. Both parties went to trial without objection. They were in court for all purposes involved in the controversy, and it makes no difference how they got there. (School Dist. No. 94 v. Gautier, 13 Okla. 194, 73 P. 954.)

The transactions of the administrator presented to the district court and brought here for review are in a most unsatisfactory condition. If the matter had not been pending so long and there were reasonable hope that a re-examination of it in the district court might bring more satisfactory results we would send the case back for retrial, but in view of the fact that it is ten years since the administration began, and that to send it back for retrial would probably prolong the litigation for one or more years, we shall attempt to dispose of it on the record presented to us, believing that substantial justice can thus be done and further delay avoided.

On December 11, 1914, respondent filed with the probate court of Lincoln county his first report as administrator. (Subsequently Jerome county was created and the probate proceedings transferred to that county.) On the same day that this report was filed the probate court, without notice entered an order approving the same. We find in the record no other formal report until that of February 17, 1917, although there are between these two reports some informal statements of receipts and expenditures filed by the administrator. If we understand respondent's contention correctly, he desires to have the first report regarded as a final report of his administration and this last report considered merely as a statement of his transactions in the management of the business of Joseph Schneeberger, deceased. If this is his position we think it cannot be sustained, for there are some claims shown by the first report to have been paid by the administrator which clearly are not proper charges against the estate, while there are numerous items in the last report that would have been legal charges against the estate if they had been...