EARNEST v. EARNEST

EARNEST v. EARNEST
1940 OK 239
102 P.2d 602
187 Okla. 258
Case Number: 29380
Decided: 05/07/1940
Supreme Court of Oklahoma

EARNEST et al.
v.
EARNEST

Syllabus

¶0 COURTS--Exclusive jurisdiction of county court as to claims enforceable against estate during administration--Action in district court not maintainable by administrator after administration closed to establish lien on property distributed to heirs for reimbursement of him for expenses of decedent's last illness and funeral.
Exclusive original jurisdiction of the allowance and payment of claims for the recovery of money, other than taxes, arising ex contractu and not presented to the personal representative of the deceased that accrue and are enforceable against a decedent's estate during the administration thereof, is in the county court, and after the administrator has petitioned for and obtained distribution of the property comprising the estate and said administration has been closed, he cannot maintain a direct action in the district court to establish a lien upon the shares of said property distributed unencumbered to the decedent's heirs by final decree in the administration proceedings to secure reimbursement for the expense of the last illness and funeral of the decedent which he claims to have voluntarily paid out of his own private funds, where no claim therefor was ever made in the administration proceedings, although the final decree showed that the funeral expenses had been paid and it is not claimed that any part of said proceedings were void or defective in any respect.

Appeal from District Court, Okfuskee County; Arthur Cochran, Judge.

Action by John J. Earnest against Louis Earnest and Lavada Whitfield. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendants appeal. Modified and affirmed.

H. Grady Turner, of Okemah, for plaintiffs in error.
Harry Stephenson and Clem H. Stephenson, both of Okemah, for defendant in error.

DAVISON, J.

¶1 This action was commenced in the district court by the defendant in error, as plaintiff, to quiet his title to a certain tract of land. He claimed that he had purchased the land, but had taken title thereto in the name of his wife, who subsequently died.

¶2 At the trial it was revealed that in the probate proceedings had in the matter of the deceased wife's estate, more than three years previous to the filing of this action, the county court had distributed the property in undivided interests of one-third to the plaintiff and 2/27ths to each of the defendants and Mrs. Earnest's other children. Accordingly the trial court in the present action quieted the plaintiff's title to only an undivided one-third interest in said land, but in entering its judgment purported to impress the interests of the defendants therein with a lien in favor of the plaintiff on account of the expenses of Mrs. Earnest's funeral and last illness which the plaintiff testified he had paid. To the portion of the judgment last described, the defendants excepted and have preserved said exception in the present appeal.

¶3 The present record contains copies of the "Final Report and Petition for Distribution and Discharge," which was filed in the county court under date of July 20, 1935, on behalf of the plaintiff as administrator of his deceased wife's estate as well as the final decree, which was thereafter entered in the probate proceedings on August 13, 1935. The final decree indicates that on the latter date the decedent's funeral expenses as well as other expenses of the estate had been paid, and in the final report no mention was made of funeral expenses, but, on the contrary, it was represented that no debts or unpaid claims were outstanding against the estate. During his redirect examination in the present case, the plaintiff admitted that he had made no claim against the estate for his expenditures in connection with his wife's last illness, funeral, and burial.

¶4 It is settled law in this jurisdiction that a husband's claim for money he has expended on account of his wife's last illness is not a proper charge against her estate, but that which he has expended for her funeral is the proper subject of a claim against said estate. In re Wagner's Estate, 178 Okla. 384, 62 P.2d 1186. It is equally well settled that exclusive original jurisdiction of the payment of claims for a money judgment arising ex contractu and not presented against the estate is in the county court, the district court's jurisdiction being appellate only. In re Gentry's Estate, 158 Okla. 196, 13 P.2d 156. We have held that liability against the heirs to the extent of the assets of the estate received by them may be enforced by direct action in the district court for claims that had not accrued or become enforceable until after the administration of the estate had been closed (Chitty v. Gillett et al., 46 Okla. 724, 148 P. 1048, L. R. A. 1916A, 1181), but those involved herein are not such claims. Upon the foregoing considerations, we conclude that the trial court was without jurisdiction in the present action to enforce the plaintiff's claims against the defendants for the expense of his wife's last illness and funeral, and the portion which purports to establish a lien therefor against their interests in the land involved herein is erroneous. It is therefore ordered that said judgment be amended and modified to conform to this view, and, as so amended, the same is affirmed.