Clyne v. Pesula

California Court of Appeal Apr 25, 1957 No. Civ. No. 9031Published

Before: Dyke, Warns

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. An administrator may perform necessary repairs on estate property to preserve it, but cannot charge the estate for the rental of his own equipment or tools under the guise of extraordinary fees, as an administrator cannot deal with himself as an individual regarding trust property.

Issues

Whether an administrator has the authority to repair estate property other than buildings and fixtures.
Whether an administrator may charge the estate for the rental of his own equipment and tools as extraordinary services.
Whether the trial court's failure to make formal findings of fact requires reversal.

Disposition. modified and affirmed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“It is well settled that an executor or administrator will not be permitted to deal with himself as an individual in any transaction concerning trust property.”

“In renting the truck and welding equipment to the estate, respondent was dealing with himself as an individual. Such items of expense should not have been allowed under the guise of extraordinary fees.”

Opinion — Warns

WARNS, J. pro tem.* This is an appeal by Alma Pesula Clyne from an order settling the first amended account of the administrator with the will annexed for the estate of Eino John Pesula, deceased, and from an order allowing said administrator fees for extraordinary services.

P. A. Pesula, as administrator of the estate of the deceased, and respondent herein, filed in June of 1955 his first and final [464]account. Thereafter, Alma Pesula Glyne, a legatee, and appellant herein, discovered that the administrator had collected $3,000 as insurance on account of damage to a tractor owned by the deceased, which he had not accounted for. She then filed objections to the account, and the hearing was set for July 19, 1955, at which time it came on for hearing. At the hearing respondent testified that he had received the $3,000 but had not reported it to the court, because he did not think it was part of the estate money. He said it was just for the repair of the tractor and had no bearing on the case. He further testified that he had spent $3,307.52 in making said repairs. At the conclusion of this hearing, the court ordered respondent to file an amended account which would include the $3,000 insurance which he received and show the items of expense for the repairs of the tractor. The matter was then continued to August 19, 1955, for further hearing. Respondent filed his amended account and included in his disbursements “Costs of repairs to tractor from Feb. 4, 1955 to June 4, 1955 as follows: $3,307.52.” The repairs were itemized as shown below.

P. A. Pesula, rental and use of 1% ton truck to haul equipment and tools, 61 trips at 28

miles at 20c per mile..................$ 341.61

P. A. Pesula, rental and use of pickup truck,

24 trips at 28 miles at 10c per mile...... 67.20

P. A. Pesula, welding equipment rental ... 136.00

P. A. Pesula, move tractor to Boonville .... 61.80

P. A. Pesula, repair labor, 485 hours at

K. J." Kelly,' labor '3/15/55 to 6/20/55'.".’.".' 800.00

Various materials and supplies........... 119.84

Clyne v. Pesula

AI Brief

Opinion — Warns

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

Concurrence — Dyke

AI Brief