Seeger's Estate, In re

• Decision Date: 22 January 1972
• Docket Number: No. 46193,46193
• Citation: 208 Kan. 585,493 P.2d 281
• Parties: In the Matter of the ESTATE of Bertha M. SEEGER, Deceased. W. C. SULLIVAN, Administrator of the Estate of Margaret Seeger, Deceased, Gayle Edward Seeger, Incompetent, Lowell F. Hahn, Guardian ad litem, Appellees, v. Mary GROTE, Executor of the Estate of Bertha M. Seeger, Deceased, Appellant.
• Court: Kansas Supreme Court

Page 281

493 P.2d 281

208 Kan. 585

In the Matter of the ESTATE of Bertha M. SEEGER, Deceased.

W. C. SULLIVAN, Administrator of the Estate of Margaret

Seeger, Deceased, Gayle Edward Seeger,

Incompetent, Lowell F. Hahn, Guardian ad

litem, Appellees, v. Mary GROTE, Executor of the Estate of Bertha M. Seeger, Deceased, Appellant.

No. 46193.

Supreme Court of Kansas.

Jan. 22, 1972.

Syllabus by the Court

1. Due notice having been given, a final settlement of an estate made by the probate court pursuant to the probate code is a final order binding upon all persons interested in the estate, and the order of final settlement, if not appealed from, becomes final and conclusive as against collateral attack.

2. K.S.A. 59-1506 (formerly G.S.1949, 59-1506) confers on probate courts the power where property is given to one for life and another person has an interest in such property as a remainderman, unless the will provides otherwise, to order such property to be delivered to the person having the limited estate.

3. In the absence of evidence to the contrary, a decree of final settlement, closing a testate estate, should be construed to operate in conformance with the terms of the will and statutes pertaining to distribution of assets upon final settlement.

4. In an action involving a petition for the allowance of a demand against a life tenant's estate, filed by the successor to the holder of a vested remainder interest in the principal estate, the record is examined and it is held: Under the provisions of K.S.A. 59-1506, and in accordance with the terms of the principal testator's will and codicil, the decree of final settlement delivered certain personal property to testator's surviving spouse as the person having a limited estate therein for her use and enjoyment during her lifetime.

William H. Stowell, Phillipsburg, argued the cause, and Doris Dixon Stowell, Phillipsburg, was with him on the briefs for appellant.

W. C. Sullivan, Phillipsuburg, argued the cause, and the firm of Hindman and Krysl, of Stockton, was with him on the briefs for administrator, appellee.

Lowell F. Hahn, Phillipsburg, argued the cause and was on the briefs as guardian ad litem for Gayle Edward Seeger (Incompetent), appellee.

KAUL, Justice.

This litigation was initiated by a claim against the estate of Bertha M. Seeger, deceased, filed in the probate court by Margaret Seeger (widow and sole legatee of Glenn E. Seeger, deceased). In the course of the proceedings Margaret Seeger died and has been succeeded by W. C. Sullivan, administrator. The claim was certified to the district court wherein a trial was had resulting in a judgment generally in favor of claimant.

In essence, the question involved is whether Bertha, the surviving spouse of G. E. Seeger, acquired full ownership of or a life estate in certain personal property, consisting primarily of an interest in a bank account and a one-half interest in 14 United States 'E' Bonds, under the decree of final settlement in the estate of G. E. Seeger, deceased.

The appellant, Mary Grote, executrix of Bertha's estate claims that the subject property, even though inventoried, was not an asset of the estate of G. E. Seeger's estate, but became the property of Bertha as a surviving joint tenant or in the alternative if the property was an assert of G. E.'s estate, full ownership thereof was delivered to Bertha by the final decree of the probate court in G. E.'s estate. Mary further claims that in any event all of the funds mentioned were exhausted by Bertha during her lifetime.

In order to put the issues on appeal in an understandable perspective a brief history of the Seeger family is necessary.

G. E. Seeger, father-in-law of Margaret Seeger and husband of Bertha M. Seeger, died testate on August 26, 1953. G. E. Seeger was survived by his widow and two children, a son Glenn and a daughter Mary Grote. The present controversy concerns the provisions of his will, which was executed on January 13, 1947, and consented to by his wife Bertha M. Seeger. In the second paragraph of his will G. E. Seeger devised and bequeathed to his wife, Bertha M. Seeger:

'. . . (A)ll my property, real, personal, or mixed, of whatever nature or kind soever, to have and to hold as long as she lives, giving unto her the full control and management, use and enjoyment, of all of said property, and the income thereof, necessary for her support, comfort, happiness, convenience, and pleasure, and after her death, then the real estate and such of the personal property as may be remaining shall go to and belong in fee to the persons as is hereinafter provided. And I direct that my said wife shall not be required to give any bond or other security as life tenant or trustee or otherwise of said property and that she shall not be required to give any accounting of the same.'

In the third and fourth paragraphs of his will, G. E. Seeger devised specifically described tracts of real estate to his son, Glenn E. Seeger, and to his daughter, Mary Grote, the devises to become effective 'After the death of my said wife and subject to the provisions of paragraph second above.'

The fifth paragraph was in the nature of a residuary clause and reads:

'After the death of my said wife and subject to all the provisions of paragraph 'Second' of this Will, then whatever, is remaining of my real and personal property I give and bequeath share and share alike to my children, Glenn E. Seeger and Mary Grote.'

Mr. Seeger also appointed his wife Bertha executrix of his will and directed that she be not required to give bond.

On October 22, 1952, some five and one-half years after the execution of the will, G. E. Seeger executed a codicil in which he devised to his daughter, Mary Grote, two parcels of real estate which had been devised to his son, Glenn E. Seeger, by the terms of the original will. In view of this change the codicil provided for a bequest to son Glenn in the amount of $3000 in cash 'to off-set this change.' The original will was ratified and confirmed in all other respects. Bertha M. Seeger duly executed her consent to the codicil.

Subsequent to the execution of his will, G. E. Seeger and Bertha signed a signature card and a depositor's contract establishing a bank account with the First National Bank of Logan. The contract was marked a joint account, which is described in the body of the contract as an account owned jointly with right of survivorship. As shown by the inventory in G. E. Seeger's estate, the account amounted to $9828.79 on the date of G. E.'s death.

Commencing in 1942 and running through 1945, G. E. and Bertha purchased 14 United States 'E' Bonds which were apparently titled G. E. or Bertha M. Seeger. The cash value of the bonds was shown by the inventory to be $2943.19 on the date of G. E.'s death.

The inventory of G. E. Seeger's estate was filed by Bertha M. Seeger, as executrix, on September 17, 1953. It listed as assets of the estate one-half of the $9828.79 in the joint bank account less the widow's allowance of $750, leaving a net of $4164.39, and one-half of the appraised value of the bonds $1471.58. The devolution of these two items becomes the principal issue in this controversy.

Continuing with the chronology of events, G. E. Seeger died on August 26, 1953; his estate was closed on October 29, 1954.

Glenn E. Seeger died testate on July 9, 1963. His widow, Margaret, was appointed executrix of his estate which was closed on January 4, 1965.

On September 16, 1966, Bertha M. Seeger made her last will and testament in which her daughter Mary Grote, respondent herein, was nominated executrix.

Bertha M. Seeger died on August 26, 1967, her will was admitted to probate and Mary Grote was appointed executrix.

On May 14, 1968, in the estate of Bertha, Margaret Seeger filed the petition for allowance of demand which is the subject of this controversy.

In her petition Margaret sets out the background facts, which we have recited in substance, and then alleged that she was the sole legatee and devisee of her deceased husband, Glenn, and that by reason thereof she is now the owner of the money and personal property in which Glenn Seeger held a vested remainder interest under the will of G. E. Seeger. Margaret further alleged that the journal entry of final settlement in the estate of G. E. Seeger set out the real estate in which Bertha was to have a life estate and the remainder interest therein that was given Glenn and Mary, but that said journal entry did not set forth with particularity the extent and nature of the title of each legatee (Glenn and Mary) acquired by them in the money and personal property under the will and codicil of G. E. Margaret also alleged that all money and personal property, as well as the land described in the will, was bequeathed to Bertha as a life estate, which she enjoyed during her lifetime and that Glenn E. Seeger had a vested remainder in $3000 of money remaining by reason of the codicil to G. E.'s will, and in addition a vested remainder in one-half of the remaining money and personal property, that Bertha's interest in the personal property, money and bonds terminated upon her death and petitioner became entitled to the possession of said property to the value of $5798.44, which sum, petitioner prayed the executrix of Bertha's estate be directed to pay over to her.

The inventory in Bertha's estate shows that on her death, in addition to real estate appraised at $20,000.00, she had $18,933.14 in cash; the 14 United States 'E' Bonds valued at $4546.79; crops and agricultural payments totaling $2468.39; and a small amount of household goods.

Mary Grote, executrix of Bertha's estate, filed an answer to Margaret's claim denying that Glenn had a vested remainder in the bonds, money and personal property. Mary alleged that on the final settlement of G. E.'s estate the probate court adjudged Bertha to be entitled to all of the cash, personal property and United States ...