In re the Estate of Smith (1897) · DecisionDepot

In re the Estate of Smith

Name: California Superior Court Tentative Rulings
Creator: DecisionDepot
License: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/

California Supreme Court Oct 4, 1897 No. S. F. No. 990Published

Before: Henshaw, McFarland, Temple

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that an executor is entitled to credit for necessary expenditures made in good faith to preserve estate property, and that the probate court erred by charging the executor with funds already spent on such preservation while ordering him to pay a family allowance from those same funds.

Issues

Whether an executor is entitled to credit for necessary expenditures made to preserve estate property.
Whether an executor can be compelled to pay a family allowance from funds already expended on the preservation of the estate.
Whether the failure to obtain prior court approval for preservation expenditures renders them improper.

Disposition. reversed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“It is the duty of the executor, without special direction of the court, to preserve the property of the estate, and he does not require leave of the court so to do”

“If the money was expended properly for the preservation of the property of the estate, the order in effect required the executor to advance the money from his own funds.”

Synopsis

APPEAL from an order of tbe Superior Court of tbe City and County of San Francisco- settling tbe account of an executor. J. Y. Coffey, Judge.

Tbe facts are stated in tbe opinion of tbe court.

TEMPLE, J. This is an appeal by tbe executor from a decree settling tbe executor’s third account and directing him to [463]pay a certain family allowance. Tbe decedent died testate October 17, 1892, having named Leon Sloss executor. Sloss qualified as executor November 16, 1892.

The testator leit a vineyard in Fresno county of one hundred ' and twenty-five acres. The vines were four years old. The executor toot possession and during the ensuing year—1893— expended in pruning, plowing, cultivating, and irrigating it $4858.84.

During the year 1894 he expended for the same purposes $757.91, and in connection with the sale of raisins from the vineyard, for drayage, etc., $483.17. In his account for that year he charged the estate $242 for interest on moneys advanced by him.

In the year 1895 he expended for like purposes the sum of $168.50, making a total, including the charges for interest, ⅞6,268.07.

May 31, 1894, an allowance was made to the widow of deceased of $150 per month from the death of decedent. At that time t-he executor had already expended $6,059.27 in caring for the vineyard.

In January, 1896, the widow caused the executor to be cited to show cause why he should not pay out of the funds in his hands the accrued allowance. The executor had a few days previously filed his third annual account, which he designated his final account, and asked leave to resign his trust. To the citation he answered that he had no funds with which to pay the allowance, and the matter of the petition and the account were heard together.

The executor has received from 'the vineyard for the raisins $2,246.78, and as rent $1,000.

The court found that no more was spent on the vineyard than was necessary for pruning, plowing, cultivating, and irrigating the same; “that a vineyard in Fresno county requires irrigation every year; that it is necessary for the preservation of the vines that they should be pruned and the land plowed, cultivated, and irrigated every year. Should they not be pruned and the land plowed, cultivated, and irrigated every year, the minimum damage would be that the vineyard would be set back three years, [464]

In re the Estate of Smith

AI Brief

Synopsis

More from California Supreme Court

Related research

AI Brief