McLellan v. McLellan

EDMONDS, J.

The appellants, testamentary trustees of the Estate of Mary Belle McLellan, are resisting a judgment entered against them in an action brought by the special administrator of the Estate of Mary Bates McLellan, who was a beneficiary of one of the trusts created by Mrs; McLellan’s will. They were also named as executors and residuary legatees of this will. The controversy concerns the right of the beneficiary to interest from the date of the testatrix’s death to the date of distribution of her estate.

Among other bequests, Mrs. McLellan left money in trust • with instructions to pay the income thereof, and such portion of the principal as the trustees deemed necessary or advisable, to or for the support and maintenance of Mary Bates MeLellan. Almost exactly one year after the testatrix’s death in 1927, her estate was distributed and the trustees received

[553]

$3,941 under this provision of the will, which amount did not include any interest.

The trust fund was administered by the trustees until the death of Mary Bates McLellan in December, 1934. During that period interest and $500 of the principal was paid to her. The first and final account of the trustees was filed in 1935. Objections to this account were filed by Asher Bates Mc-Lellan, special administrator of his mother’s estate (the respondent in the present action), upon the ground, among others, that it did not include interest from the date of death of the testatrix to the date of the decree of distribution. Upon appeal, it was held that the decree of distribution, having become final, was not subject to collateral attack in the subsequent proceeding for the settlement of the trustees ’ account.

(Estate of McLellan,

14 Cal. App. (2d) 271 [57 Pac. (2d) 1338].) The respondent then commenced the present action in equity, charging that by reason of the trustees ’ failure to obtain distribution of interest upon the

corpus, oí

the trust, that they benefited as residuary legatees to the amount of $275.

Appellants contend that as the decree of distribution did not include interest, the probate court, in effect, found that no interest was due; that this decree is now final and relief from it can only be had upon a showing that it was procured by extrinsic fraud not the result of negligence of the respondent or his predecessor; that assuming a cause of action for extrinsic fraud has been stated, it is one to establish a constructive trust and lies only against appellants as individuals, and their demurrer, as trustees, should have been sustained on this ground; and, finally, that an action to establish a constructive trust has been barred by the statute of limitations.