Teeter's Estate, In re, 41295
| Decision Date | 11 April 1959 |
| Docket Number | No. 41295,41295 |
| Citation | 337 P.2d 691,184 Kan. 567 |
| Parties | ESTATE OF Frank TEETER, Deceased. C. H. TEETER and R. S. Teeter, Appellants, v. C. G. BAALMAN, Administrator, Fern Miller by Albert Miller, Legal Guardian of Fern Miller, an Incompetent Person, Dorothy Van Marter, and Bertha Nowka, Appellees. |
| Court | Kansas Supreme Court |
Syllabus by the Court
Where two petitions to enforce specific performance of a contract, as more fully set forth in the opinion, are filed in the same estate in the probate court, the record is examined and it is held that they were properly transferred to the district court under the provisions of G.S.1957 Supp. 59-2402a.
Alex. M. Fromme, Hoxie, argued the cause, and Joseph W. Fromme, Hoxie, was with him on the briefs for the appellants.
W. H. Clark, Marion W. Chipman and Kenneth Clark, Hill City, and Edward M. Beougher, Grinnell, were on the brief for the appellees.
This is an appeal from an order of the trial court sustaining, on jurisdictional grounds, motions to dismiss the petitions of two heirs of decedent's estate to enforce specific performance of a postnuptial contract entered into by decedent and his deceased wife.
Appellants C. H. and R. S. Teeter, hereinafter referred to as petitioners, filed separate petitions in the probate court which are, for all purposes, identical alleging that their father, Frank Teeter, died intestate September 16, 1956; that appellee C. G. Baalman was appointed administrator of the estate; that the sole and only heirs at law of decedent at the time of death were his two sons, the petitioners herein, and six daughters, appellees Fern Miller, Dorothy Van Marter and Bertha Nowka, and Alice Johnson, Evelyn M. Chapman and Bessie Meyer; that at the time of his death Frank Teeter owned certain real and personal property, as shown by the inventory and appraisal on file in the estate; that Mary M. Teeter, wife of decedent, died February 16, 1935, but prior thereto she and her husband, Frank, entered into a written postnuptial agreement dated January 30, 1926, and duly recorded February 1, 1926, whereby they made provisions for a division and final disposition of all property owned by Frank; that out of the described fourteen quarters of land, a house, moneys and personal property Mary was to be given a deed to the house in Grinnell, certain moneys and other personal property, and a life estate in eight quarters of the land; that Frank was to make a will devising the eight quarters of land, subject to Mary's life estate, to the six daughters, and was to devise and bequeath to his two sons, C. H. and R. S. Teeter, petitioners herein, all other real estate and personal property of every kind and nature of which he should die seized and possessed; that upon Mary's death Frank conveyed the eight quarters of land to the six daughters as agreed, but failed, by will, deed or otherwise, to comply with the terms of the agreement wherein he was to devise and bequeath all of his real and personal property to his two sons. Each of the petitioners prayed that the court decree specific performance of the contract and that he be adjudged the owner of one-half interest in the real and personal property of which Frank Teeter died seized and possessed.
Subsequent to the filing of these petitions the administrator filed a verified request, in accordance with the provisions of G.S.1957 Supp., 59-2402a and G.S.1949, 59-2402b, for transfer of the matter to the district court. After fixing the time and place of hearing the request and after directing service of notice and proof thereof, the probate court heard the administrator's request and transferred the petitions to the district court for hearing and determination Under order of the district court, written defenses were filed and issues joined in accordance with the provisions of G.S.1949, 59-2408.
At the time set for trial appellee Miller presented three separate motions to dismiss the petitions. The first two motions asserted the absence of certain alleged statutory notices. The court made no ruling on these two motions, holding them moot in view of its ruling on the third motion. No further mention will be made of the ruling on these two motions, inasmuch as there was no appeal therefrom to this court. Pennington v....
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Meyer's Estate, In re
...P.2d 768; Charvat v. Moore, 167 Kan. 336, 205 P.2d 980; In re Estate of Michaux, 171 Kan. 417, 421, 233 P.2d 510; In re Estate of Teeter, 184 Kan. 567, 569, 570, 337 P.2d 691.) In In re Estate of Shirk, 186 Kan. 311, 350 P.2d 1, it was 'The probate code fixes its own procedure, and during t......
-
McCormick v. Maddy
... Page 1007 ... 348 P.2d 1007 ... 186 Kan. 154 ... John McCORMICK, Administrator of the Estate of Edwin G ... Lytle, deceased, et al., Appellees, ... Helen MADDY et al., Appellants ... No ... ...
-
Teeter's Estate, In re
...Another respondent, Bessie Meyer, did not file a demurrer. This case has appeared before this court previously (In re Estate of Teeter, 184 Kan. 567, 337 P.2d 691) and that appeal was from the trial court's order sustaining, on jurisdictional grounds, motions to dismiss the petitions of C. ......