Stromberg v. Stromberg
| Decision Date | 15 November 1912 |
| Docket Number | 17,634 - (46) |
| Citation | 138 N.W. 428,119 Minn. 325 |
| Parties | CARRIE STROMBERG v. LOUIS C. STROMBERG |
| Court | Minnesota Supreme Court |
The probate court for Goodhue county discharged and denied the petition of Carrie Stromberg for an order directing Louis C Stromberg, as administrator of the estate of her deceased husband, to turn over to her such sums as she was entitled to under law as widow of deceased. From that order, petitioner appealed to the district court for that county, where the appeal was tried before Johnson, J., who made findings and as conclusion of law found that petitioner was not entitled to any relief and dismissed the petition. From the judgment entered pursuant to the findings and order for judgment Carrie Stromberg appealed. Reversed and remanded.
Widow's allowance.
Under section 3653, R.L. 1905, the allowance to the widow of the personal wearing apparel and a limited amount of the household goods from the husband's estate, is confined to the articles specified, and she has no right to select money or other property in lieu thereof.
Widow's allowance -- when decedent was nonresident.
The widow of a nonresident decedent is entitled to the statutory allowance out of the property of her husband found in this state where it appears that her husband left no other property whatever.
George Frantzen, Charles J. Tryon and Lew C. Church, for appellant.
F. M. Wilson, for respondent.
Peter J. Stromberg died in Chicago, Illinois, while a resident therein, leaving him surviving his widow, the appellant, but no issue. He left no estate whatever in the state of his domicil, either in the way of household furniture or other personal property, except that he carried $2,000 life insurance payable to his estate. His brother was appointed administrator of the estate by the probate court of Goodhue county, Minnesota. He, having possession of the insurance policy, collected the full amount thereof. Resident creditors of the deceased presented claims against the estate which were duly allowed by said probate court, aggregating more than $2,000. Appellant, as widow, presented her petition for the statutory allowance of the equivalent for household goods in money, and also for the sum of $500 out of other personal property. Her petition was denied in toto by the probate court and also by the district court on appeal. She appeals to this court from the judgment entered on the findings and order of the district court.
We are clear that the trial court was right in holding that, where a decedent left no household goods, the widow is not entitled to have any allowance in lieu thereof. If there be household goods, she is entitled to select and keep such to the value of $500, but the statute, section 3653, R.L. 1905, does not allow her to select an equivalent in other property. Her right to the selection of certain specified articles of her deceased husband's property is clearly confined to those articles, the household goods, not to exceed a fixed value. In regard to the additional allowance of $500, it is equally clear that she may select money or any other form of personal property of her deceased husband.
Therefore the only doubtful question in the case relates to the court's ruling that a widow of a nonresident decedent is not entitled to claim the statutory allowance from his estate, the whole thereof being in this state. It is true that, for the purposes of distribution of the estate of a nonresident decedent, all his personal property is regarded as being situate at the place of his domicil, subject to the right of his creditors in the state where the property is actually found to lay hold thereof through ancillary administration in the probate court to the extent of satisfying their claims. And the respondent confidently asserts that under section 3687, R.L. 1905, the whole estate of a nonresident decedent, as far as it may be laid hold of here, is subservient to the rights of the creditors here residing. But this section must be construed in connection with section 3653 above cited, and also sections 3714 and 3715 of the Code. By the last two sections it is provided that, after the inventory has been filed and before any claims are presented or allowed, the surviving spouse may petition the court to set aside the homestead and assign to her the personal property allowed by law. Thereupon the court shall make an order setting aside such homestead and assigning such property to her. The last part of section 3715 reads:
"The property so set aside shall be delivered by the executor or administrator to the person entitled thereto, and shall not be treated as assets in his hands."
The part the widow is entitled to is not to be included in the estate to be administered upon, and is not subject to the expenses of administration or the payment of proved claims and is no part of the residue to be distributed. All that the probate cou...
To continue reading
Request your trial