Title: In Re Estate of Patrick

State: kansas

Issuer: Kansas Supreme Court

Document:

179 Kan. 507 (1956)
297 P.2d 201
In the Matter of the Estate of James Patrick, Deceased.
(HAROLD PATRICK, Appellant,
v.
LUCILLE MULHOLLAND, Appellee.)
No. 39,991

Supreme Court of Kansas.
Opinion filed May 5, 1956.
Paul A. Wolf, of Hugoton, argued the cause, and J.S. Brollier, of Hugoton, was with him on the briefs for the appellant.
D.O. Concannon, of Hugoton, argued the cause, and H.M. Hood and Jack Hood, both of Borger, Texas, were with him on the briefs for the appellee.
The opinion of the court was delivered by
PARKER, J.:
James Patrick, a resident of Stevens County, died intestate on March 1, 1933. So far as the record discloses he left two children (Lucille Mulholland and Harold Patrick) as his only heirs at law and was the owner of a ninety-four-acre tract of real estate in Stevens County. On April 23, 1933, pursuant to action by the probate court of that county, C.E. Prine was appointed and qualified as administrator of his estate. On April 14, 1937, the administrator commenced proceedings to sell the land for purposes *508 of paying debts and cost of administration. Pursuant to such proceedings the land was sold and the property conveyed to Lucille Mulholland by an administrator's deed. This instrument, acknowledged by the probate judge of Stevens County, was executed on June 1, 1940, and filed for record in the office of the Register of Deeds on January 4, 1941. Thereafter, and by order of the probate court dated May 31, 1941, the estate was closed and the administrator discharged.
On February 10, 1954, more than thirteen years after the execution and recordation of the administrator's deed and more than twelve years after the date of final settlement of the estate, Harold Patrick filed a motion in the probate court for an order vacating and setting aside the sale proceedings on the ground such proceedings were void. Thereafter, and following a hearing at which Lucille Mulholland was present and participated, the probate court sustained this motion and executed an order wherein it vacated all such proceedings.
Subsequently, on appeal from this ruling, the district court proceeded to try the case de novo and found the motion to vacate the sale proceedings should be denied. Thereupon it rendered its judgment which, omitting formal averments in the journal entry of no consequence to the issues, reads:
Following rendition of the foregoing judgment and the overruling of his motions for judgment on the trial court's findings of fact and for a new trial Harold Patrick perfected the instant appeal.
*510 Boiled down and stripped of all excess verbiage the gist of all contentions raised by appellant on this appeal is based upon the premise that the administrator's deed in question is void because the evidence in the district court failed to establish an order of sale in probate court to support it. In the face of the heretofore quoted findings of the trial court, and other evidence before it not therein specifically mentioned, we are inclined to the view appellant's position with respect to the force and effect to be given the evidence is not warranted by the record. See, e.g., Findings Nos. 2, 4, 5, 6 and 9, heretofore quoted. Even so, for reasons to be presently noted, it is neither necessary nor required that we here consider, discuss or determine the many interesting questions raised by appellant with respect to that subject.
Pointing out that the administrator's deed had been on record in the office of the Register of Deeds for more than thirteen years preceding the date of the commencement of the action and that such instrument was regular and in due form, containing recitals showing that the administrator had obeyed the rules and directions of the law in every respect in making the sale which led to its execution, appellee directs our attention, as she did in pleadings filed by her in the district court, to provisions of our statute of limitations G.S. 1935, 60-304, now G.S. 1949, 60-304, which read:
..............
and contends that such statute has run in favor of the administrator's deed and bars an action where  as here  the essence thereof is to set aside an administrator's sale of real estate and recover the property so sold and conveyed.
We think the question thus raised by appellee must be answered in the affirmative on the basis of our early decision of Young v. Walker, 26 Kan. 242, where, with respect to a somewhat similar situation and in determining the force and effect to be given an earlier statute of like import, we said and held:
Also by a more recent decision, O'Keefe v. Behrens, 73 Kan. 469, 85 Pac. 555, which is now regarded as our leading case on the point, where, in reiterating verbatim what has just been quoted and after discussing at great length the reasons behind the pronouncement of the rule therein announced, we reached the same conclusion and held:
And in concluding portions of the opinion said:
For later decisions of like import, wherein the foregoing decisions and the rules therein announced are considered, discussed, approved and applied, see James v. Logan, 82 Kan. 285, 108 Pac. 81; Erskin v. Dykes, 158 Kan. 788, 150 P.2d 322; Schlemeyer v. Mellencamp, 159 Kan. 544, 551, 156 P.2d 879; Bradley v. Hall, 165 Kan. 358, 362, 194 P.2d 943.
In an attempt to forestall our conclusion his action was barred *512 by the statute of limitations appellant directs our attention to the fact, stipulated as the result of a pretrial conference, that neither he nor the appellee had been residents of or lived in the State of Kansas subsequent to June 1940, and contends, referring to G.S. 1935, 60-309, now G.S. 1949, 60-309, that that fact tolled the running of the statute of limitations (G.S. 1949, 60-304, Second). Under our decisions (See Travis v. Glick, 150 Kan. 132, 142, 91 P.2d 41; Herthel v. Barth, 148 Kan. 308, 313, 81 P.2d 19; Bell v. Hernandez, 139 Kan. 216, 223, 30 P.2d 1101; Hogaboom v. Flower, 67 Kan. 41, 42, 72 Pac. 547) the short and simple answer to this contention is that this was an action to affect the res which might have been instituted at any time within five years after appellant's alleged cause of action accrued in the county where the land was situated and service could have been obtained by publication; hence nonresidence and absence of either of the parties from the state had no effect on the running of the statute.
Finally it should be stated we have not overlooked but rejected another contention advanced by appellant, to the effect the statute of limitations does not apply to an administrator's deed which is not based on an order or judgment of a court directing such sale, simply and solely because it has no application under the existing facts and circumstances. The trial court found (see its Finding No. 2), and we think properly so, that by virtue of the petition for authority to sell, the order setting that application for hearing and specifying publication notice and the proof of publication, the probate court acquired jurisdiction on May 3, 1937, to order the sale of the real estate in question. Assuming arguendo no order of sale was made on that date the uncontroverted record (See trial court's Finding No. 4) is that thereafter, and on March 23, 1939, the probate court without notice made an order wherein it recognized that a prior order of sale had been made and directed the administrator to sell the real estate in accord with its terms. Good or bad, void or valid, that action on the part of the probate court resulted in "an order or judgment of a court" within the meaning of those terms as used in the heretofore quoted statute of limitations.
We find nothing in other arguments advanced by appellant, either with respect to the case in chief or the trial court's action in overruling his motion for a new trial, warranting a change in the views heretofore expressed. It follows the judgment must be affirmed and it is so ordered.