In Re Estate of David

Oliver, C. J. Tbe will of Isidore A. David, deceased, was admitted to probate in 1931, and bis widow, Martba B. David, appointed executrix. Under said will tbe estate passed in equal shares to tbe widow, a brother, David S. David, and a sister, Lilly D. Glougie. Objections to tbe final report of tbe executrix, by tbe brother and sister, were largely overruled and objectors appeal. I. One assignment of error relates to tbe allowance of fees for attorneys for executrix aggregating $252.92. Half of this amount was allowed an attorney for services rendered in tbe first period of administration and half to attorneys who are completing tbe probate. Although tbe total amount was twice tbe statutory fee, tbe record shows that substantial extraordinary legal services were rendered and that the allowance was reasonable and proper. In this connection it may be noted tbe trial court disallowed tbe application of tbe executrix for fees for extraordinary services upon tbe ground that most of tbe additional work bad been done by tbe different attorneys for tbe estate. II. Tbe trial court allowed tbe widow to retain certain tools belonging to decedent and tbe household goods. Appellee bases her right to this property, in part, upon section 11918, Code of Iowa, 1935, which provides that when deceased leaves a widow all exempt personal property shall be set apart *354 to ber as ber property. However, sbe was a devisee in tbe will and under tbe circumstances was not entitled to tbe exempt property. Code of Iowa, 1935, section 11847. Appellee also claims tbis property under an oral understanding with appellants that they would waive tbeir rights to it in return for certain concessions from ber. Tbe record shows a subsequent written agreement for partition and settlement of tbe estate which provided that it should not affect any personal property and that tbe same should remain in tbe bands of tbe executrix until final settlement. We think tbis written agreement supersedes any oral understanding. We conclude tbe tools and household goods of decedent should be treated as general assets of tbe estate. Of course, tbe widow is entitled to retain such property as belonged to ber individually. In tbis latter category is included tbe electric stove, refrigerator, washing machine, radio, vacuum cleaner, parlor furniture and rugs, and daybed. Tbe record shows these articles were not owned by tbe husband at bis death. Tbe record further shows tbe tools and certain furniture inventoried at an estimated value of $76 belonged to decedent. Further determination may be bad respecting tbe ownership of furniture and household goods other than those above-mentioned. III. Appellants seek to charge tbe executrix for about $76 which was lost by tbe closing of a local bank in which estate funds were deposited. Tbis was tbe bank in which decedent bad kept bis funds during bis lifetime and tbe executrix continued to deal with it. There was no showing of insolvency of tbe bank prior to tbe receivership or that appellee bad any knowledge of its failing condition. Tbe court found executrix was not negligent in tbis respect and exonerated ber from personal liability. No error appears here. Andrew v. Sac County State Bank, 205 Iowa 1248, 214 N. W. 24; In re Estate of Workman, 196 Iowa 1108, 196 N. W. 35. IV. Tbe estate accounts included certain rentals from farm lands in which decedent owned a life interest and appellants tbe remainder. All 1930 rentals belonged to tbe estate of decedent but due to bis death in August, 1931, it was agreed tbe rents for that year should be divided equally between the *355 estate and the remaindermen. From the sale of livestock, produce, etc., turned over by tenants to apply upon 1930 and 1931 rents, the executrix realized a net total of $922.41 from which she distributed to herself $205.43 and to each appellant $358.49. We have carefully cheeked the necessarily complicated accounts of the executrix upon which these allocations and payments were based and find them correct. In this connection appellants also claim executrix failed to debit the estate account with $55 for rents collected. However, they appear to have overlooked a debit item of $70 for hogs sold and a credit item of $15 paid for printing notices of the public sale. These two items disclose the $55 which appellants contend' was not shown. As above-noted the 1931 farm rentals were to be equally divided between the estate and appellants as remaindermen. The rents collected by executrix were thus divided. However, appellants themselves collected certain of these 1931 rents and failed to pay the executrix the half belonging to the estate. The trial court found appellants were indebted to the estate upon this item and ordered that no distribution be made to them until it was paid. We concur in this finding and ruling. Y. Various other objections made to the conduct of the affairs of the estate need not be considered in detail. The delay in closing the estate is shown to have been due in part to the failure of appellants to pay inheritance taxes due from them, to pay their part of the costs of administration and to make settlement for rentals collected and retained by them. No loss appears to have been occasioned by permitting the estate to remain open. Moreover, appellant David S. David, a practicing attorney who represented himself and his sister, was conversant with the situation and until August, 1938, took no action to require the executrix to close the estate. Upon the whole record we are satisfied the executrix was true to her trust and that these contentions of appellants are without substantial merit. In re Estate of Amick, 225 Iowa 829, 281 N. W. 786; In re Bourne’s Estate, 210 Iowa 883, 232 N. W. 169. As above-noted the order of the trial court is modified with respect to the household goods and tools belonging to said estate. In all other respects it is affirmed. The costs upon appeal are *356 taxed four fifths to appellants and one fifth to appellee. — -Modified and affirmed. RiChards, Hale, Mitohbll, Miller, Bliss, and Sager, JJ., concur.