Court Opinion

ID: 9866316
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-26 03:40:22.328683+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T14:20:03.467458
License: Public Domain

On Motion for Rehearing.
Respondents have, in their motion for a rehearing, vigorously reiterated their contention that, the widower, Walter J. Monahan, not having made any application, for the allowance for twelve months’ maintenance, to the probate court, and, his guardian, also, having failed so to do, his right to the same has become extinct on the theory that the failure to make such application constituted a waiver of his rights. ' *
It is further urged in the motion for a rehearing, that the Court, in its opinion, has, in effect, rewritten the statute and rewritten, or broken, the will of Mayme Monahan, and nullified; pro tanto, the provisions intended by the testatrix for her two sisters (residuary beneficiaries) and given the $1600 allowance ordered, to the heirs of Walter J. Monahan, as he, being dead, could derive no benefit from such allowance.
We think that the advancement of such an argument comes with rather poor grace under the circumstances. ' It will be noted that following the death of Mayme Monahan, her sister’s husband, E. B. Whitworth, was appointed guardian of Walter J. Monahan, the insane widower,' and acted as such until the latter’s death, which was ten months and six days after the death 'of his wife, and, the record shows that he immediately was appointed his administrator, but, in a short time thereafter was removed and the present administrators 'appointed.
It is conceded in the motion for a rehearing, and, properly so, that the guardian for the widower had the right to apply for the allowance. We hold that he had not only the right to make the application for the allowance on behalf of his ward, but that it was his duty to do so. Under the provision of sections 461 and 462, Revised Statutes Missouri 1929 (Mo. Stat. Ann., secs. 461 and 462, p. 288) it became his duty to provide for his ward’s “suport and maintenance” and to collect and take charge of the ward’s estate, including all “evidences of debt.” It follows, therefore, that if the guardian *101failed to make seasonable application for the twelve months’ maintenance allowance, in the absence of provisions for his ward, in accord with the right as set ont in section 107, Revised Statutes Missouri 1929 (Mo. Stat. Ann., sec. 107, p. 69) and, by reason of such neglect of duty the right to such allowance was lost, the guardian would clearly be liable on his bond. [See section 457, Revised Statutes Missouri 1929 (Mo. Stat. Ann., sec. 457, p. 287.]
Here was an appropriation, for twelve months ’ maintenance for an insane ward, which he, by reason of his mental infirmity, was unable to apply for, and his guardian neglected to do ,f.o.r him -what, the law required him to do. The guardian’s failure to apply for and-collect this allowance for his ward could be accounted for on no other ground than that such failure would augment the amount which his wife and sister-in-law' would receive as residuary beneficiaries under their sister’s will. (Tiis wife,, Louise Whitworth, was the sister who made and filed in the probate court her motion to strike from, the files the renunciation of the will and election made by the administrators for decedent, Walter J. Monahan.)
For that reason, we would be very reluctant to hold that the right of the insane widower to the twelve months’ maintenance out of h,isr deceased wife’s estate is lost. The record shows that the estate is intact and the money not distributed and the administrators, when making their application for the allowance were properly following their duty “to collect all money and. debts of, every kind due to the deceased.’’ [Section 94, Revised Statutes Missouri 1929 (Mo. Stat. Ann., sec. 94, p. 57.] The right of the surviving spouse to, the provisions necessary for twelve months’ maintenance, enumerated in section. 106, Revised Statutes. Missouri, 1929 (Mo. Stat. Ann., sec. 106, p. 67) or, to an appropriation in the event of their non-existence, under section 107, Revised Statutes Missouri 1929 (Mo. Stat. Ann., sec. 107, p. 69) does not depend on the length of time such spouse may live after the death of his, or her mate. The-right to such maintenance becomes vested in the surviving,. spouse immediately upon the death of the mate. The surviving spouse may live, for only one day after the death of his or her mate and still the right exists and may- be asserted by the personal representatives of such surviving spouse, although- the latter may never enjoy such twelve months’ maintenance but for a limited time, or, as in the instant case, not at all.
The motion for a rehearing is overruled.
Becker and McGullen, JJ., concur.