Case Title: State Department of Social Welfare v. Carlson

Citation: 176 Kan. 299, 270 P.2d 200

Docket Number: 39,353

State: kansas

Court: Kansas Supreme Court

Date: 1954-05-08T00:00:00Z

Document:
176 Kan. 299 (1954)
270 P.2d 200
In the Matter of the Estate of AUGUSTA CARLSON, Incompetent. THE STATE DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL WELFARE OF KANSAS, Appellant,
v.
ALBIN CARLSON, Guardian, Appellee.
No. 39,353

Supreme Court of Kansas.
Opinion filed May 8, 1954.
Charles V. Hamm, of Topeka, argued the cause, and Harold R. Fatzer, attorney general, Paul E. Wilson, assistant attorney general, Hart Workman, and James S. Engle, all of Topeka, were with him on the briefs for the appellant.
Lawrence O. Bengtson, of Salina, argued the cause, and was on the briefs for the appellee.
The opinion of the court was delivered by
HARVEY, C.J.:
This appeal is from an order of the district court *300 denying the claim of the State Department of Social Welfare of Kansas against the estate of Augusta Carlson in which Albin Carlson had been appointed guardian of her estate.
On March 17, 1953, the State Department of Social Welfare filed its petition in the probate court of Saline county in the estate of Augusta Carlson, incompetent, Albin Carlson, guardian, in which it presented its demand against the estate in the sum of $5,445.29 on account of the claim of the state of Kansas for the maintenance, care and treatment of Augusta Carlson, incompetent, for a period of time from March 19, 1934, to June 30, 1951, at $5 a week, and from July 1, 1951, to December 31, 1952, at $12 a week as shown by its verified claim attached to its petition. As the duly appointed and acting guardian of the estate of Augusta Carlson, Albin Carlson filed his written defense in which he alleged that the money in his hands was a part of the proceeds of selling her homestead and it was therefore exempt and that on March 19, 1934, when Augusta Carlson had been declared incompetent and committed to the state hospital the probate court had made an investigation and found that neither she nor her husband had any funds with which to pay for her care and that she should be admitted to such hospital as a state patient which order had not been rescinded, for which reason the state could not collect for that purpose for her care and maintenance.
John Carlson filed a written defense to the claim in which he alleged that he was the husband of Augusta Carlson on March 19, 1934, which marriage relationship still exists; that he was the record and fee simple owner of the described 80 acres of land upon which he and his wife resided as their homestead and that he continued to occupy the same as his homestead until it was condemned by eminent domain proceedings by the United States of America in the District Court of the United States for the District of Kansas by which action the United States acquired title to said property; that at the time of the eminent domain proceedings the guardian of the estate of Augusta Carlson joined in the conveyance inasmuch as Augusta Carlson had an inchoate interest in the real estate; that the guardian of the estate of Augusta Carlson, an incompetent person, had only an inchoate interest in the funds in his possession which said interest is subject to being divested in the event Augusta Carlson predeceases her husband, John Carlson, who is now the rightful owner of the funds in the hands of the guardian of Augusta Carlson; that the funds in the hands of the guardian of Augusta Carlson *301 are proceeds from the sale of the previously described property, and that the funds are exempt as homestead property from the payment of all debts as provided by G.S. 1949, 60-3501. The prayer was that the petition for allowance of demand filed by the State Department of Social Welfare of Kansas be denied and in the event that said claim is allowed that the court make an order prohibiting the guardian from disbursing the funds in his hands inasmuch as Augusta Carlson had only an inchoate interest in such funds and that this deponent is the rightful owner thereof. The claim was denied by the probate court. The claimant appealed to the district court of Saline county where the facts were agreed upon by the attorneys for the State Department of Social Welfare and the attorney for Augusta Carlson's guardian and for John Carlson, which read:
In the district court after argument by counsel and due consideration the court made conclusions of fact which embodied the agreed statement of facts, somewhat extended, and also made the following conclusions of law:
To these conclusions of law the court attached a note as to how the United States might proceed to perfect its title to the 80-acre tract of land purchased.
In harmony with its conclusions of law the court denied the claim of the State Department of Social Welfare. This appeal followed.
We think the trial court was too much concerned with the title of the property purchased by the United States. It was not a party to this action. Before its title to real estate is held bad it should be a party to an action where that question is properly put in issue.
We think the contention of Albin Carlson, guardian of the estate of Augusta Carlson, to the effect that when she was pronounced incompetent the court found she had no money to pay for her care and maintenance and that she should be placed in the state hospital at state expense, which order was never revoked, prohibited the state from collecting anything from her estate now, is not well taken. In The State v. Bryan, 105 Kan. 483, 185 Pac. 25, it was held:
On behalf of John Carlson it is argued that Augusta Carlson was not entitled to anything out of the sale of the homestead property for the reason that the title to that real property was in his name; that his wife had nothing but an inchoate interest in it, and that none of it should have been given to her guardian in the first place. This argument is of no consequence now. He is not suing his wife's guardian to recover this money. If he gave her $4,150 out of the sale of the 80-acre tract of land, or out of any other fund, it became her separate property and so remains as such in the possession of her guardian.
We see but two questions in this case. First, whether the Department of Social Welfare has an existing claim against the estate of Augusta Carlson; and, second, if so, can the funds of her estate now in the hands of Albin Carlson, guardian, be used to pay the claim.
The statutes relating to who should pay the cost of maintenance of one committed to one of our state hospitals at the time Augusta Carlson was committed are §§ 39-231 and 39-233 of our revised statutes of 1923. They read:
Our present statute, G.S. 1949, 59-2006, though worded differently is to the same legal effect. Under either, the estate of a person committed to a state hospital is primarily liable for the maintenance and care of such person, and spouses, parents and children are secondarily liable. See, In re Estate of Colclazier, 157 Kan. 125, 139 P.2d 152.
We think it clear that the State Department of Social Welfare of Kansas has a valid claim against Augusta Carlson and any estate she has that is subject to the payment of claims.
The next question is whether the sum due the state may be collected from the estate of Augusta Carlson now in the hands of Albin *305 Carlson, guardian of her estate. The guardian and also the husband of Augusta Carlson contend that this money is exempt being the proceeds of a homestead. It does not appear that this claim was raised at the time of the appointment of a guardian, or at any time prior to the time defenses were filed to the state's claim here under consideration. A somewhat similar claim was raised in Smith v. Gore, 23 Kan. 488, where it was held:
And on p. 490 it is said:
The rule expressed in the above case has been recognized and followed in subsequent cases. See First National Bank v. Dempsey, 135 Kan. 608, 610, 11 P.2d 735. The money in the hands of the guardian of the estate of Augusta Carlson cannot be regarded as exempt on the grounds that it is the proceeds from the sale of a homestead. Since the United States government is not a party to this action we are not determining its rights, if any, to such funds.
The result is the judgment of the trial court must be reversed with direction that the trial court enter judgment in harmony with this opinion. It is so ordered.