Paul v. Miller

DRAPEAU, J. pro tem. In the county of Bourbon, in the State of Kentucky, W. W. Massie died in 1906. Upon settlement of his estate, by direction of his will there was established a trust for the use and benefit of his only son W. C. Massie during his lifetime, with remainder over to the heirs of his body. In 1922 the son died, without issue. The son’s executor filed a suit in equity in the Circuit Court of- the State of Kentucky, to ascertain by judicial decree the persons entitled to the trust, and also to determine the validity of such claims as might be presented against the probate estate of the son. In this suit the heirs at law, devisees and creditors of W. C. Massie were defendants.

The circuit court determined that the trust property passed by inheritance to the son’s heirs, the collateral kin of his father and mother, a moiety to each branch. As to heirship, this decision was affirmed by the Court of Appeals of Kentucky in 1924. (Bourbon Agricultural Bank & Trust Co. v. Miller, 205 Ky. 297 [265 S.W. 790].)

As a creditor defendant in this equity action the son’s housekeeper presented claims for several thousand dollars for use and occupancy by him of her house and for nursing and caring for him in his declining years. These claims were disallowed. From this judgment the housekeeper appealed.

When the Court of Appeals of Kentucky adjudged her claims to be valid (McMillan v. Massie’s Ex’r, 233 Ky. 808 [27 S.W.2d 416]), it was found that, notwithstanding the appeal, in 1927 or 1928 all the property of the estate had been distributed to the heirs at law, and nothing was left in the estate with which to pay the claims.

With the situation thus confronting the claimant, her legal remedies under the law of Kentucky are set forth in Massie v. Paul, 263 Ky. 183 [92 S.W.2d 11, 18], as follows:

“It was competent for the court by appropriate orders in the action to settle Massie’s estate, to compel either a creditor, heir, devisee, or legatee to refund or make restitution of any sum, or a portion thereof, received by him under its orders, in excess of that to which he was entitled to accomplish an equitable distribution or to pay any creditor entitled thereto. How to accomplish such refund or restitution was entirely within the sound discretion of the court. ... A procedure -for that purpose may be on notice, for rule, or on pleading or a petition of any interested party to the action to settle the estate and if by an independent petition, a consolidation therewith.”

[76]