In Re Estate of Kuenzli

17 N.W.2d 309, 219 Minn. 176
CourtSupreme Court of Minnesota
DecidedDecember 29, 1944
DocketNo. 33,859.
StatusPublished

This text of 17 N.W.2d 309 (In Re Estate of Kuenzli) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Minnesota primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
In Re Estate of Kuenzli, 17 N.W.2d 309, 219 Minn. 176 (Mich. 1944).

Opinion

1 Reported in 17 N.W.2d 309. On August 3, 1943, the probate court of Redwood county made its final decree of distribution in the estate of Benjamin H. Kuenzli, deceased. Subsequently, on March 13, 1944, the district court made findings and conclusions in effect upholding the probate decree. This appeal is from an order denying the motion of Anna E. Werder for amended findings and conclusions or a new trial. *Page 177

Decedent was the illegitimate son of Lena Kuenzli. He died intestate on August 7, 1942, without issue, spouse, parents, or brothers and sisters surviving him. His mother had died intestate prior thereto on September 26, 1940. As her sole issue, Benjamin inherited all her property.

At the time of her death, Lena Kuenzli left surviving her also the following:

Charles Kuenzli ) her brother.

Anna E. Werder ) her sister.

Bertha Kuenzli ) her sister, who died intestate on ) November ) 17, 1941, without issue or parents ) surviv- ) ing her and whose heirs hence are ) other- ) wise the same as those of Lena Kuenzli.

Helen K. Conterno ) adopted daughter of Emil Kuenzli, her ) brother.

Charles Luscher ) children of Margaret Mueller, her ) sister. Ed Luscher ) Emma Mueller )

Ruby Orth ) children or grandchildren of Gottlieb Marion Kuenzli ) Kuenzli, her brother. Bernard Kuenzli )

May Carter ) children of Mary Luscher, her sister. Alfred Luscher ) Lincoln Luscher ) Addie Hollingsworth ) Walter Luscher ) Ethel Holmes )

Ellen Luscher Johnson ) grandchildren of Mary Luscher, her ) sister. Nellie Luscher Elliott) Ernest Luscher ) Lawrence Luscher ) *Page 178

The decree of distribution here under attack decreed Benjamin H. Kuenzli's estate as follows:

An undivided 1/6 thereof to Charles Kuenzli, brother of decedent's mother.

" " 1/6 " to Anna E. Werder, sister of decedent's mother.

" " 1/6 " to Helen K. Conterno, adopted daughter of Emil Kuenzli, brother of decedent's mother.

" " 3/18 " in equal shares to Charles Luscher, Ed Luscher, and Emma Mueller, sole surviving issue of Margaret Mueller, sister of decedent's mother.

" " 3/18 " in equal shares to Ruby Orth, Marion Kuenzli, and Bernard Kuenzli, children and grandchildren of Gottlieb Kuenzli brother of decedent's mother.

" " 6/48 " in equal shares to Mary [May] Carter, Alfred Luscher, Lincoln Luscher, Addie Hollingsworth, Walter Luscher, and Ethel Holmes, sole surviving children of Mary Luscher, sister of decedent's mother.

" " 1/48 " to Ellen Luscher Johnson, daughter of Fred Luscher, son of Mary Luscher, sister of decedent's mother.

" " 3/144 " in equal shares to Nellie Luscher Elliott, Ernest Luscher, and Lawrence Luscher, grandchildren of Mary Luscher, sister of decedent's mother.

Section 525.173 provides:

"If any illegitimate child dies intestate and without spouse or *Page 179 issue who inherit under the law, his estate shall descend to his mother, or in case of her prior decease to her heirs other than such child."

Appellant contends that § 525.16(4) (e), in conjunction with § 525.173, governs the distribution of Benjamin's estate, and that thereunder appellant and Charles Kuenzli, as closest of kin to him, should receive the entire estate in equal portions. Section 525.16(4) (e) provides:

"If there be no surviving issue, spouse, father, mother, brother, sister, nor issue of any deceased brother or sister, then in equal shares to the next of kin in equal degree, except that when there are two or more collateral kindred in equal degree claiming through different ancestors, those who claim through the nearest ancestor shall take to the exclusion of those claiming through an ancestor more remote."

Respondents contend, and the probate and district courts determined, that § 525.16(4) (d), in conjunction with said § 525.173, as applied to the heirs at law of Lena Kuenzli, mother of decedent, governs the distribution herein. Section 525.16(4) (d) provides:

"If there be no surviving issue, spouse, father nor mother, then to the surviving brothers and sisters, if any, and to the issue of any deceased brother or sister in equal shares if all are of equal degree and, if not, then in equal shares to those in the nearest degree and by right of representation to those in a more remote degree."

In substance, the issue here is whether § 525.16(4) (e) applies to § 525.173 and requires that distribution should be made under said sections to the heirs of decedent, or whether § 525.16(4) (d) applies to § 525.173 and requires that the heirs of the mother be ascertained and determined under § 525.16(4) (d) and distribution be made to such heirs under the latter section.

1. Section 525.173 was enacted by the legislature for the purpose of changing the common-law rule that an illegitimate had no heirs *Page 180 except of his issue, and that neither his mother nor other kindred were entitled to inherit from him. Reilly v. Shapiro,196 Minn. 376, 265 N.W. 284; 7 Am. Jur., Bastards, § 150. The language of said statute is clear and definite and leaves no room for construction. Thereunder, we cannot escape the conclusion that decedent's property goes to the heirs of the mother under § 525.16(4) (e) and that the probate court and the district court properly construed said statutes and based their decrees accordingly.

Counsel for appellant asserts that if the trial court's construction is adopted, as a result the distribution of the estate of an illegitimate child may differ materially from that of a legitimate child. While this may be true, we must conclude that the legislature intended this result. As the court stated in In re Estate of Galbraith, 210 Minn. 356, 358,298 N.W. 253, 254:

"* * * Descent of property is entirely with the legislature. It is not for the courts to question the justice or propriety of the descent as to any heir or class of heirs or next of kin. The court should only search for the intention or meaning of the legislature when the wording of the statute is obscure."

2. It is plain that § 525.16(4) (d) controls and determines descent of the property through Lena Kuenzli, as she had brothers and sisters surviving her at the time of her death. This being true, § 525.16(4) (e) has no application. As the court stated in McDonnall v. Drawz, 212 Minn. 283, 287,3 N.W.2d 419

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

In Re Estate of Galbraith
298 N.W. 253 (Supreme Court of Minnesota, 1941)
Reilly v. Shapiro
265 N.W. 284 (Supreme Court of Minnesota, 1936)
McDonnall v. Drawz
3 N.W.2d 419 (Supreme Court of Minnesota, 1942)
Darrough v. Davis
1928 OK 730 (Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 1928)
Magee v. Chambers
147 A. 306 (Court of Chancery of Delaware, 1929)
Larson v. Nelson
223 N.W. 41 (South Dakota Supreme Court, 1929)
Werder v. Luscher
17 N.W.2d 309 (Supreme Court of Minnesota, 1944)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
17 N.W.2d 309, 219 Minn. 176, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-estate-of-kuenzli-minn-1944.