U.S. Veterans' Bureau v. Glenn

• Decision Date: 11 January 1932
• Citation: 46 S.W.2d 200,226 Mo.App. 674
• Parties: UNITED STATES VETERANS' BUREAU, APPELLANT, v. ARTHUR COX GLENN, BY LEE BRIDGEWATER, GUARDIAN, RESPONDENT
• Court: Kansas Court of Appeals

46 S.W.2d 200

226 Mo.App. 674

UNITED STATES VETERANS' BUREAU, APPELLANT, v. ARTHUR COX GLENN, BY LEE BRIDGEWATER, GUARDIAN, RESPONDENT

Court of Appeals of Missouri, Kansas City

January 11, 1932

Appeal from the Circuit Court of Caldwell County.--Hon. Ira D Beals, Judge.

AFFIRMED (conditionally).

Judgment affirmed.

V. E Welles and H. L. Songer for appellant.

O. J Adams for respondent.

OPINION

ARNOLD, J.

This is an appeal from a judgment of the circuit court approving the overruling of certain exceptions to allowance made by the probate court of Caldwell county to respondent, as guardian of a war veteran.

There is no dispute as to the facts. It appears one Arthur Cox Glenn is a veteran of the United States Army. On September 30, 1918, he was adjudged a person of unsound mind and respondent was appointed his guardian. He qualified and is still acting as such. Compensation and insurance due Glenn by reason of his military service were paid to said guardian from time to time, through the United States Veterans' Bureau. With interest upon the investment thereof, on November 19, 1929, the estate amounted to $ 15,629.51. There were no other assets.

On said day the respondent filed his annual settlement for the year 1929. The income for the preceding year is shown therein to have been the sum of $ 1211.34, as compensation and insurance received from the Veterans' Bureau, and the further sum of $ 786 as interest secured from loans made by him. In this settlement, he credited himself with $ 60 commission at five per cent on the said $ 1211.34, and also the further sum of $ 140, as an allowance by the court for services to date. Simultaneously with the presentation of said settlement reciting such credits, he filed a petition in said probate court stating he had deducted as his commission five per cent of the said $ 1211.34, and alleging that this sum did not compensate him for his services as guardian in the management and preservation of the estate; in keeping the money properly invested, and praying, by reason thereof and the trouble incident to the care of the person of said ward, he should be allowed the sum of $ 140, "in addition to the commission on money received." This allowance was also made by the probate court.

Authority for the intervention by the United States Veterans' Bureau and its regional attorney, in behalf of the ward, upon the matters of filing the exceptions and the taking of the appeals herein, is found in the World War Veterans' Act as amended by Congress May 29, 1928, Section 450, Title 38, U.S. Code.

The Veterans' Bureau, on January 13, 1930, filed its exceptions in the probate court, based on the sole ground that the combined allowances of $ 200 exceeded five per cent of the funds received by the estate during the year for which the accounting was made. The probate court overruled the exceptions. An appeal was then duly perfected, as heretofore stated, to the circuit court, where such exceptions were again overruled and the action of the probate court approved. Upon trial to the circuit court upon appeal, in addition to the introduction in evidence of the various settlements of the guardian, filed with the probate court, respondent testified at length with respect to his services which included the securing and looking after certain real estate loans, their renewal, the collection of interest thereon, and the receipt of the insurance and compensation payments from the United States.

It further appears that in the early part of the year 1929, the ward escaped from the Veterans' Hospital at Sheridan, Wyoming, where he had been confined. In connection therewith, respondent endeavored by telegraph, telephone and letters to locate him, in which effort he was successful. Thereafter, Glenn's mother and brother at Kingston, Missouri, were entrusted with his custody but respondent, as guardian, continued to exercise daily supervision over him. Respondent made a trip to Sheridan, Wyoming, to return his ward to the Veterans' Hospital. However, in this connection the record discloses he charged for and was allowed expenses in the sum of $ 185.41. This amount included an allowance at the rate of $ 6 per day to himself in lieu of an attendant. No contention is made by the Veterans' Bureau as to this allowance.

In this State of the record appellant urges five assignments of error which may properly be combined under one point. It is apparent the only question involved is the authority of the probate court, in view of section 607, Revised Statutes 1929, to make an allowance in excess of five per cent of the year's income received, belonging to the ward. Said section reads as follows:

"Compensation allowed to guardian of such persons entitled to money benefits under United States Veterans' Bureau shall not exceed five per cent of the income of a ward during any year."

Since it is conceded respondent is the guardian of a person receiving money benefits from the Veterans' Bureau, under the plain provisions of the statute, he could not be allowed more than five per cent of the income of his ward during the accounting year. Respondent asked and, in respect to the item of $ 1211.34, received an allowance in the sum of $ 60. The amount of $ 140 also was allowed him, both by the probate court and the circuit court for "additional services." No consideration apparently was accorded the amount of $ 786, which was income derived from the investment of previous moneys, five per cent of which would have been the sum of $ 39.30.

Notwithstanding our State statute, it is respondent's contention that his allowance is governed by section 11 of the Uniform Veterans' Guardianship Act, to which he refers as an "Act of Congress," controlling upon the subject-matter hereof. Said section reads as follows:

"Compensation payable to guardians shall not exceed five per cent of the income of the ward during any year. In the event of extraordinary services rendered by such guardian the court may, upon petition and after hearing thereon, authorize additional compensation therefor payable from the estate of the ward. Notice of such petition and hearing shall be given the proper office of the Bureau in the manner provided in section 9. No compensation shall be allowed on the corpus of an estate received from a preceding guardian. The guardian may be allowed from the estate of his ward reasonable premiums paid by him to any corporate surety upon his bond."

We are unable to...