Turner v. Fryberger (In re Robbins' Estate)

• Decision Date: 28 April 1905
• Citation: 94 Minn. 433,103 N.W. 217
• Parties: In re ROBBINS' ESTATE. TURNER v. FRYBERGER.
• Court: Minnesota Supreme Court

94 Minn. 433

103 N.W. 217

In re ROBBINS' ESTATE.TURNER

v.FRYBERGER.

Supreme Court of Minnesota.

April 28, 1905.

Appeal from District Court, Hennepin County; Willard R. Cray, Judge.

In the matter of the estate of Jane Robbins. From an order of the probate court allowing the account of William O. Fryberger, Charles A. Turner appeals to the district court. From an order granting a new trial on settlement of the administrator's account, the administrator appeals. Affirmed.

Syllabus by the Court

Neither the administrator of the estate nor his attorney may, for their personal use and profit by a sale thereof, purchase an outstanding life estate in real estate of which the administrator is trustee. In such case the administrator is chargeable with and must account to the estate for the amount so realized. Harrison E. Fryberger, for appellant.

Julius E. Miner and W. M. Babcock, for respondent.

LEWIS, J.

Appeal was taken to the district court from an order of the probate court of Hennepin county allowing the account of the administrator of the estate of Jane Robins, deceased. The facts as found by the trial court are: W. O. Fryberger was appointed administrator with the will annexed, who employed his brother as an attorney for himself, as administrator, and for the estate. Mrs. Robbins left, surviving her, a husband, Nathan J. Robbins, and three children by previous marriages. At the time of her death she was seised and possessed of a house and lot in Minneapolis occupied by her as a homestead, in which her surviving husband succeeded to a life estate. May 20, 1901, the attorney of the administrator purchased from Mr. Robbins his life estate for $250, and received a deed therefor. June 1, 1901, the administrator sold the reversionary interest in the property for $700, and on the same day, to the same party, the attorney sold the life estate for $700, and separate deeds were executed conveying such interests to the purchaser. In his final account the administrator accounted for the $700 received from the sale of the reversionary interest. It was also found as a fact that the same attorney had been employed by Mr. Robbins to act for him in connection with the estate, for which services he was paid $75. The trial court allowed the administrator $50 for his personal services and $100 for his attorney. The court granted a motion for a new trial, without stating the grounds of the order.

The only question which we deem it necessary to consider on this appeal is whether the attorney occupied such a position with reference to the administrator and the estate that he was prohibited from profiting by the purchase and sale of the life estate. According to the annuity tables, Mr. Robbins' expectancy of life was a little over 11 years, he being then 64. There were some debts outstanding, and it was provided by the will that the property should be sold and the proceeds disbursed in a certain way. It was apparent that the property would sell more advantageously when the two interests were united than when sold separately, as neither interest would command its real value if offered for sale separately. It therefore became incumbent upon the administrator to use all reasonable means to unite with the owner of the life estate in disposing of the property. Neither the probate court nor the district court found what the value of the life estate was, but the evidence shows that it was agreed between the administrator and the attorney who purchased the life estate that the two interests were of equal value. It...