Sellars v. Sellars
| Citation | 264 N.W. 425,196 Minn. 143 |
| Decision Date | 10 January 1936 |
| Docket Number | 30,666 |
| Parties | PAUL SELLARS v. JULIA SELLARS |
| Court | Supreme Court of Minnesota (US) |
Plaintiff appealed from a judgment of the district court for Rice county, Fred W. Senn, Judge, dismissing, for lack of jurisdiction, his action for an accounting against Julia Sellars as his former guardian. Affirmed.
Guardian and ward -- accounting -- jurisdiction of court.
In 1927 the probate court entered its decree discharging the appellant's guardian and approving a settlement them made. Shortly thereafter the guardian moved to Illinois where she has resided ever since. In 1934 the appellant brought an action to vacate and set aside the decree discharging the guardian on the ground that there had been a mistake in the final settlement and that appellant had been induced by fraud to make said settlement. Further, it was asked that the guardian be required to make an accounting to appellant. Service was had by publication. The probate court found that there had been a mistake in the final settlement and ordered its records corrected, but held that it had no jurisdiction to require an accounting of the guardian. On appeal to the district court this was affirmed. Held that the judgment of the district court be affirmed.
Burton R. Sawyer, for appellant.
William W. Pye, for respondent.
An appeal from a judgment of the district court dismissing, because of lack of jurisdiction, plaintiff's appeal from an order of the probate court denying plaintiff any relief against his former guardian in an action for an accounting.
William Sellars died intestate in 1925 possessed of an 80-acre homestead. He was the husband of Julia Sellars, the defendant, and the father of Paul Sellars, the plaintiff, and of Ruby Sellars, both children being minors at the time of their father's death. The plaintiff and Ruby Sellars each were decreed an undivided one-half interest in the land, their interest being subject to a life interest therein of the defendant. Defendant was appointed guardian of the children. As such she took possession of certain personal property belonging to her wards. In 1927 she petitioned the probate court for license to sell the real estate. Permission was granted and a sale made for $8,400, defendant's life estate being reported as appraised at and sold for $7,791.80 and the remainder belonging to the wards as only $608.20. The defendant at that time was 53 years of age. The sale of the wards' interest for the amount stated was confirmed by the probate court.
Plaintiff became of age April 9, 1928, and signed a receipt for all property due him from his guardian and authorized her release as such. No consideration for the release was stated. Plaintiff was paid $728 by the guardian as the amount due him. On June 2, 1928, the probate court made and filed its order discharging the guardian and her bondsmen from further liability in said matter. Shortly thereafter the defendant moved to Illinois, where she has ever since resided.
May 15, 1934, plaintiff filed a petition in the probate court requesting that the order releasing the defendant as his guardian be set aside and that the guardian be ordered to account to him for his proper share of the proceeds from the sale of said land. He claimed that there was fraud in the obtaining of his signature and consent to the above mentioned receipt; that it was represented to him by the defendant that the amount paid him was his share of the personal property and that the defendant was entitled to the income from the proceeds of the sale of the land during her lifetime. It was further claimed that the appraisers erred and should have appraised the life interest of the defendant in the land as worth only $4,579.68 instead of $7,791.80.
The probate court made an order for a hearing on the petition. The order also provided for service on defendant by publication, which was duly made and a copy of the court order mailed to the defendant and also one to her attorney of record in the previous proceedings, who also acted as her attorney in these proceedings. At the time set for the hearing the defendant appeared specially by this attorney and objected: (1) That the court had no jurisdiction of the subject matter; (2) that the court had no jurisdiction of the parties; (3) that plaintiff's petition did not state facts entitling him to any relief. The court overruled the objection to jurisdiction and ordered the petition heard on the merits. At a hearing had, the defendant's attorney still claiming lack of jurisdiction, the probate court found that the appraisers had made an error in computing the value of defendant's life interest and ordered its records changed so as to show the correct amounts. The court then held that it had no jurisdiction to require the defendant or her bondsmen to pay petitioner any amount that might be due him.
Plaintiff appealed to the district court and made a motion to have that court make an order for the parties to frame pleadings plaintiff submitting a proposed complaint. Defendant again appeared specially and objected to the motion upon the grounds that: (1) The court...
To continue reading
Request your trial