Williams' Estate, In re, s. 37546

• Decision Date: 06 February 1959
• Docket Number: 37555,37554,37552,37549,37553,Nos. 37546,37547,37548,s. 37546
• Citation: 254 Minn. 272,95 N.W.2d 91
• Parties: In re ESTATE of Mary Edith WILLIAMS, Decedent. In re GUARDIANSHIP of Mary Edith WILLIAMS, Incompetent (two cases). In re GUARDIANSHIP of Sterling C. WILLIAMS, Incompetent. Frances M. PURDY, Appellant-Respondent, v. Oscar A. NORDQUIST, Respondent-Appellant, Frank H. Durham, Respondent-Appellant, John J. McKasy, Special Guardian of Sterling C. Williams, Respondent.
• Court: Minnesota Supreme Court

Page 91

95 N.W.2d 91

254 Minn. 272

In re ESTATE of Mary Edith WILLIAMS, Decedent In re GUARDIANSHIP of Mary Edith WILLIAMS, Incompetent (two cases) In re GUARDIANSHIP of Sterling C. WILLIAMS, Incompetent Frances M. PURDY, Appellant-Respondent, v. Oscar A. NORDQUIST, Respondent-Appellant Frank H. Durham, Respondent-Appellant, John J. McKasy, Special Guardian of Sterling C. Williams, Respondent.

Nos. 37546, 37552, 37547, 37548, 37553, 37554, 37549, 37555.

Supreme Court of Minnesota.

Feb. 6, 1959.

Rehearing Denied March 10, 1959.

Syllabus by the Court.

1. Orders which merely grant or deny motions for summary judgment are interlocutory and hence nonappealable unless the motions present questions which the district court certifies are important and doubtful.

2. The first cousin of an incompetent ward has a sufficient interest in his person to obtain a hearing on any account connected with his estate under M.S.A. § 525.581, which provides that upon the motion of any person interested in the ward or his estate the probate court shall allow a hearing.

3. A person who has an interest in a ward under M.S.A. § 525.581 may also have an interest in preserving the ward's estate for the ward's benefit. Held that the first cousin of an incompetent ward had a sufficient interest in the latter's person, and by virtue thereof in his estate, to challenge the guardian's accounts therein and also had a sufficient interest in the estate of the ward's deceased mother to challenge accounts in her estate because, as the son was his mother's sole heir, the property in her estate would eventually become a part of his estate.

4. The language of M.S.A. § 525.712, which provides for appeals to the district court by any person aggrieved by an order of the probate court, is broad enough to cover anybody who is properly before the probate court and is the losing party as the result of an adverse order.

5. Held, on the facts of this case, that the propositions of law and fact in the district court contained allegations which were sufficient to satisfy the particularity required of fraud allegations under Rule 9.02, Rules of Civil Procedure.

6. Orders which grant or refuse discovery procedure, including orders involving depositions, are interlocutory and not appealable.

7. An order requiring an additional bond against damages under M.S.A. § 525.714 is interlocutory and nonappealable.

Ray G. Moonan, Arthur D. Reynolds and George A. Lewis, Minneapolis, for Frances M. Purdy.

Van Valkenburg, Blaisdell & Moss, Minneapolis, for Oscar A. Nordquist.

Alvin W. Swanson, Minneapolis, for Frank H. Durham.

Covell & Bachelder, Minneapolis, for John J. McKasy.

DELL, Chief Justice.

This case involves eight separate appeals from an order of the District Court of Hennepin County in four actions which were consolidated below and have also been consolidated for disposition here. The actions arise out of appeals to the district court from proceedings in the probate court of that county in two general guardianships, one special guardianship, and the estate of Mary Edith Williams, deceased.

From the record and the files in the guardianships and estate which were received in evidence, it appears that in April 1945 Sterling C. Williams, then 48 years old, was declared incompetent by the probate court because of excessive use of alcohol and narcotics. He was unmarried and was the sole heir presumptive and next of kin of his widowed mother, Mary Edith Williams. A general guardian was appointed, and when he resigned two years later Oscar A. Nordquist, an attorney, was named his successor. At the time Nordquist was appointed, the appraised value of Sterling Williams' estate was $16,002.34. From March 1947 until June 1955 an additional $57,834.25 was received by the estate, and during the same period, expenses of $68,828.78 were incurred so that the remainder in the estate at the time of the filing of the final account in June 1955 was $5,007.81.

In March 1949 Nordquist petitioned the probate court for an order allowing him $1,200 as the reasonable value of his services up to that time and $50 a month thereafter. The petition was granted and the order issued. At the same time another petition was filed by Nordquist for an allowance to him of $850 for legal services which he had rendered to Sterling Williams in the guardianship matter. That petition was also granted. Had Nordquist been compensated according to those orders, he would have received a guardianship fee of $4,950 up to June 1955 and an additional fee of $850 for legal services or a total of $5,800. However during this period he obtained an additional order for compensation of $10,000 and paid himself out of his ward's estate at least $32,945 as guardian's fees and for legal services. On December 7, 1955, Nordquist obtained an order allowing him an additional $10,000 as compensation.

During this same period other legal fees were also paid out of Sterling Williams' guardianship estate. An order for the payment of $5,000 was obtained and $4,000 was paid to Frank H. Durham as the ward's personal attorney although Sterling Williams claimed that he had never engaged Durham or authorized him to act in his behalf in any way. Just what Durham did to earn these fees does not satisfactorily appear either from the record before us or from the files of the probate court. A fee of $1,150 was also paid to a firm of attorneys not involved here for the defense of a civil action against the ward for assault and battery. On December 7, 1955, Durham also obtained an order allowing him an additional $5,000 for services.

On November 1, 1949, Nordquist, acting as the guardian of Sterling Williams, petitioned the probate court for the appointment of a general guardian over his ward's mother, Mary Edith Williams, because of her age. The petition was acknowledged before William M. Thomson and was presented to the court in a cover bearing the printed name and address of George W. Tanner. It appears that at that time Nordquist, Thomson, Tanner, and Donald H. Bruer all shared the same law offices although whether they were associated financially is not clear. ¹ On the same day Nordquist, again acting as Sterling Williams' guardian, petitioned the probate court for the appointment of a special guardian for Mrs. Williams pending the outcome of the general guardianship proceedings and was himself appointed special guardian over her person. The Northwestern National Bank of Minneapolis was appointed special guardian of her estate and held title to and possession of her real estate and her corporate stocks and bonds. ² It had acquired the property at various times after January 1947 as the res of a living trust which Mrs. Williams had created at that time, naming the bank as trustee. Through Durham, her personal attorney, Mrs. Williams objected to the appointment of a general guardian over her. Nordquist, however, was appointed by the probate court in January 1950, and an appeal to the district court was taken from that order. There the matter lay dormant until June 30, 1953, when the appeal was dismissed pursuant to a stipulation signed by Durham, on behalf of Mrs. Williams, by Nordquist, individually, and by Tanner, his attorney. In January 1950 Nordquist, on his own petition, was also appointed special guardian of Mrs. Williams' estate, succeeding the bank. The appraised value of her estate was $745,144.25.

In October 1949 Mrs. Williams had revoked the trust and the bank had consented to the revocation. It had, however, retained possession of the assets of the trust pending a determination of Mrs. Williams' competency to revoke it. In May 1950 Durham, as Mrs. Williams' personal attorney, petitioned the probate court for an order directing Nordquist to ratify the revocation and to take the necessary legal steps to reacquire the assets as a part of the guardianship estate. The court issued the order and Nordquist ratified the revocation. Meanwhile proceedings were under way in the district court in connection with the trust. In 1951 the district court found that Mrs. Williams was competent to revoke the trust and entered orders discharging the bank as trustee and directing it to turn over the assets to Nordquist as special guardian. The bank complied with the orders.

The special guardianship continued until June 30, 1953, the date on which the appeal in the general guardianship was dismissed by stipulation. Nordquist became general guardian July 1, 1953, and continued in that capacity until the death of Mrs. Williams, March 16, 1955. During the period of Mrs. Williams' guardianships the total income of her two estates was $284,947.39 and the total disbursements were $378,435.24. During the same period, orders from the probate court for fees for various services totaling $161,200 were obtained for Nordquist, Durham, Tanner, and Thomson. As special guardian Nordquist had obtained orders for fees totaling $33,250 and as general guardian he obtained orders for $39,750. Nordquist also petitioned the court at intervals for orders to pay to Tanner, as attorney for the special guardian, fees totaling $24,700 and to Thomson, as attorney for the general guardian, fees totaling $6,500. Durham obtained orders for fees totaling $34,000 during the special guardianship and $23,000 during the general guardianship--a total of $57,000. During the two guardianships $135,850 was paid to these men as follows: To Nordquist $69,650; to Tanner $20,200; to Thomson $5,000; and to Durham $41,000. At the time of the hearing on the final account the probate court found that they had not been paid in full and held that they were entitled to receive the following amounts: Nordquist $3,500, or $150 more than he had requested; Tanner $4,500; Thomson $1,500; and Durham $16,000.

In each instance, in preparing and presenting a petition for payment, the procedure followed was the same. Nordquist, as guardian, would deliver to Durham, as...