Shurtz's Will, In re, No. 47825

CourtUnited States State Supreme Court of Iowa
Writing for the CourtGARFIELD; All Justices concur except MANTZ
Citation242 Iowa 448,46 N.W.2d 559
PartiesIn re SHURTZ'S WILL.
Decision Date06 March 1951
Docket NumberNo. 47825

Page 559

46 N.W.2d 559
242 Iowa 448
In re SHURTZ'S WILL.
No. 47825.
Supreme Court of Iowa.
March 6, 1951.

Page 560

Keenan, Clovis & Harris, of Shenandoah, for appellants Beatrice Gass and Audrey Bening.

Ferguson & Ferguson, of Shenandoah, for appellee and cross-appellant Mark Eischeid, as trustee.

[242 Iowa 450] GARFIELD, Justice.

This is a controversy between a trustee and, apparently, his sister who receive the income from the trust, on one side, and two owners of remainder interests (1/6 to each) as to whether certain expenditures of the trustee are chargeable to principal, as the trustee maintains, or to income, as the remaindermen contend. The trial court prorated most of the expenditures between principal and income. Both trustee and remaindermen have appealed.

The trust consists of some $45,000 in property and money and is to be administered until the death of testator's widow with the net income divided equally between the trustee and his sister. At the termination of the trust the property is to go 1/3 to two stepdaughters (1/6 to each), 1/3 to the trustee and 1/3 to the latter's sister, a niece of testator. The widow, still alive, elected to refuse to take under the will and to take her statutory distributive share.

After administering the trust nearly six years the trustee applied to the probate court for authority to charge seven different expenditures to the principal of the trust. The stepdaughters objected to the application. We call them objectors. The matter was heard upon stipulated facts which admit most of the fact statements in the application. The trial court prorated most of the items between income and principal on the theory the recipients of each benefited proportionately from the expenditures. Upon this appeal the objectors contend all the expenditures are chargeable to income and the trustee maintains substantially all are chargeable to principal.

The important provision of the will is that the trustee 'shall pay out of the income from my property all taxes and assessments thereon and all other expenses incident to the ownership of such property, including any expenses he may have as trustee. * * * net income shall be divided equally between my said trustee and my niece * * *.'

The will also states that in the event the trust property cannot be divided in kind the trustee may convert it into cash for the purpose of making division. All the expenses of such proceedings are to be paid by the trustee 'out of my estate and the net amount remaining to be divided by him, as hereinbefore provided.'

Page 561

[242 Iowa 451] I. Under court order the trustee furnished a bond of $40,000 upon which he paid premiums of $1406. The trial court held this expense was payable out of income because of the language of the will 'including any expenses he may have as trustee.'

The trustee argues that since the will does not relieve him from furnishing bond and the bond was required by sections 633.32, 633.43, Code, 1946, I.C.A., the provisions of the will are not controlling and liability for the bond expense should be determined as if there were no will. It is asserted that in the absence of a will this expense would be prorated between income and principal. Of course failure of the will to refer specifically to bond premiums does not aid the trustee if such expense is of the kind the will directs paid from income.

The trustee also contends the will directs payment from income only of taxes and assessments and other expenses incident to ownership of the property, including such expenses of the trustee as are incident to such ownership. It is argued bond premiums are therefore not payable from income. The trial court apparently concluded legitimate expenses of the trustee, as for bond premiums, are by the terms of the will included in 'expenses incident to the ownership of such property' which are payable from income. We think this a proper construction of the will and are not disposed to interfere with it. There is nothing in Re Estate of Paulson, 221 Iowa 706, 712, 266 N.W. 563, cited by the trustee, inconsistent with our conclusion.

While of course we are not called upon to decide to whom the bond premiums should be charged if it were not for the terms of the will, we may observe they are usually considered as payable from income of the trust as part of the ordinary expenses of administering it. Parkhurst v. Ginn, 228 Mass. 159, 117 N.E. 202, 206, Ann.Cas. 1918E, 982, 987; Butler v. Builders Trust Co., 203 Minn. 555, 282 N.W. 462, 466, 124 A.L.R. 1178, 1182, and Anno. 1183, 1205; 33 Am.Jur., Life Estates, Remainders, etc., section 430.

II. Shortly before this application was made the trustee and his sister filed written request that the trustee be relieved from furnishing bond to protect either of them, that the bond be reduced in amount and made for the protection only of the stepdaughters. [242 Iowa 452] It was stipulated the bond should be reduced to $10,000 and be for the protection only of the interests of the stepdaughters who contended, however, premiums on the new bond should be payable from income. The trial court ordered the bond reduced in accordance with the stipulation and the payment of premiums thereon from income as an expense of the trustee within the terms of the will.

The trustee contends that since the reduced bond is for the protection of the interests of the stepdaughters the cost thereof is chargeable to such interests. Reliance is placed upon our decision in Re Estate of Smith, 165 Iowa 614, 623, 146 N.W. 836, that attorney fees in a will contest should be borne by those for whose benefit the expense was incurred. See also In re Estate of Hartman, 233 Iowa 405, 412, 9 N.W.2d 359, 363, 364, and citations; In re Estate of Swanson, 240 Iowa 1011, 1015, 38 N.W.2d 652, 654.

The trustee also cites Buder v. Franz, 8 Cir., 27 F.2d 101, 114, 115, which approves a decree directing cost of a trustee's bond for the protection of certain remainder interests charged to the obligees. This part of the decree was not in conflict with the terms of the trust.

We are not disposed to interfere with the trial court's decision that the cost of the reduced bond be paid from income. Code sections 633.32 and 633.43 require the bond and the remainder interests are entitled to its protection. While the trustee and his sister might waive protection of the bond as to their own interests this should not cause premiums on the new bond to be chargeable to the objectors. Under the circumstances, cost of the new bond is as much an expense of the trustee which the will directs paid from income as were the premiums on the larger bond.

III. The trustee contends that because certain lots have always been vacant

Page 562

and unproductive $142 of taxes thereon should be...

To continue reading

Request your trial
7 practice notes
  • Home Builders Ass'n v. West Des Moines, No. 99-2025
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Iowa
    • May 8, 2002
    ...court has defined a tax as "a charge to pay the cost of government without regard to special benefits conferred." In re Shurtz's Will, 242 Iowa 448, 454, 46 N.W.2d 559, 562 (1951); accord Newman v. City of Indianola, 232 N.W.2d 568, 573 (Iowa 1975). In other words, taxes are for the primary......
  • Opinion of the Justices, No. 7848
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of New Hampshire
    • October 13, 1977
    ...state for special services rendered to a given party. Gunby v. Yates, 214 Ga. 17, 19, 102 S.E.2d 548, 550 (1958); In re Trust of Shurtz, 242 Iowa 448, 454, 46 N.W.2d 559, 562 (1951). Our cases implicitly recognize this distinction. In Opinion of the Justices, 81 N.H. 552, 120 A. 629 (1923),......
  • Stonebrook's Estate, In re, No. 51913
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Iowa
    • April 5, 1966
    ...405, 412, 9 N.W.2d 359, 363, 364, and citations; In re Trust of Lunt, 235 Iowa 62, 86, 87, 16 N.W.2d 25, 37, 38; In re Trust of Shurtz, 242 Iowa 448, 457, 46 N.W.2d 559, Affirmed. All Justices concur. ...
  • City of Hawarden v. US West Communications, Inc., No. 97-544
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Iowa
    • March 24, 1999
    ...568, 573 (Iowa 1975) (tax equals charge to pay cost of government without regard to special benefits conferred); In re Trust of Shurtz, 242 Iowa 448, 454, 46 N.W.2d 559, 562 (1951) (same); see also City of Pella v. Fowler, 215 Iowa 90, 98, 244 N.W. 734, 738 (1932) (city's police power to im......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
7 cases
  • Home Builders Ass'n v. West Des Moines, No. 99-2025
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Iowa
    • May 8, 2002
    ...court has defined a tax as "a charge to pay the cost of government without regard to special benefits conferred." In re Shurtz's Will, 242 Iowa 448, 454, 46 N.W.2d 559, 562 (1951); accord Newman v. City of Indianola, 232 N.W.2d 568, 573 (Iowa 1975). In other words, taxes are for the primary......
  • Opinion of the Justices, No. 7848
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of New Hampshire
    • October 13, 1977
    ...state for special services rendered to a given party. Gunby v. Yates, 214 Ga. 17, 19, 102 S.E.2d 548, 550 (1958); In re Trust of Shurtz, 242 Iowa 448, 454, 46 N.W.2d 559, 562 (1951). Our cases implicitly recognize this distinction. In Opinion of the Justices, 81 N.H. 552, 120 A. 629 (1923),......
  • Stonebrook's Estate, In re, No. 51913
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Iowa
    • April 5, 1966
    ...405, 412, 9 N.W.2d 359, 363, 364, and citations; In re Trust of Lunt, 235 Iowa 62, 86, 87, 16 N.W.2d 25, 37, 38; In re Trust of Shurtz, 242 Iowa 448, 457, 46 N.W.2d 559, Affirmed. All Justices concur. ...
  • City of Hawarden v. US West Communications, Inc., No. 97-544
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Iowa
    • March 24, 1999
    ...568, 573 (Iowa 1975) (tax equals charge to pay cost of government without regard to special benefits conferred); In re Trust of Shurtz, 242 Iowa 448, 454, 46 N.W.2d 559, 562 (1951) (same); see also City of Pella v. Fowler, 215 Iowa 90, 98, 244 N.W. 734, 738 (1932) (city's police power to im......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT