104 So. 481 | La. | 1925
Lead Opinion
This matter involves an opposition to an administrator's account. Susie Hawthorne (widow) died intestate on October 14, 1918, leaving certain unpaid debts (of which, more hereafter) and an estate amounting to $4,324, composed of (1) three lots of ground in the town of Oakdale, unimproved, appraised at $450; (2) two lots of ground, with improvements, appraised at $3,000; (3) certain personal property consisting of furniture and fixtures, all appraised at $874.
One Louis Benson, at her request, signed all of said notes as comaker (joint and several); and thereupon the deceased executed a deed of sale by which she conveyed to him said property, the consideration recited being $1,700 cash. This purports, on its face, to be an outright sale, and no counterletter was given; but it is admitted that it was intended as security only.
The deed of sale given to Benson by the deceased to secure him for what he might pay upon the property operated as a mortgage
upon said property in favor of Benson for all that he had paid out on account thereof. Davis v. Kendall, 50 La. Ann. 1121, 24 So. 264; Rice-Stix Dry Goods Co. v. Saunders,
Likewise, Benson is liable for the same net rental value of the property whilst under his charge as administrator, if the property could have been rented and he neglected to do so. An administrator is responsible for *641 any loss sustained by the estate by reason of his neglect, or by his failure to exercise that degree of prudent care which he would have exercised in the management of his own affairs. Succession of Boudousquie, 9 Rob. 405; Succession of Noblet, 2 La. Ann. 281.
We find from the evidence that the property could, and should, have been rented for $60 per month (net above taxes) during the 22 months from November, 1918, to September, 1920, both inclusive, say $1,320.
On the other hand, Benson is entitled to deduct therefrom his expenses for repairs and improvements during that time. R.C.C. arts. 501, 508. And the evidence satisfies us that during that time he expended for necessary repairs and useful improvements on the property the sum of $375.
Deducting $375 from $1,320 leaves a balance of $945 which Benson must account for as the revenues which might and should have been derived from the property.
(1) Price of real estate purchased .......... $2,000 (2) Appraised value of movables .......... 874 (3) Net revenues from succession property ..... 945 ------ Making total debits against administrator .......................... $3,819
On the other hand, the evidence shows that he is entitled to credit for the following debts, due by the succession and paid by him, viz.:
*642(1) Mortgage indebtedness and interest ...... $1,538 17 (2) Funeral expenses, $173.20; doctor's bills, $28; drugs, $4; meat and groceries, $58.50; lighting, $10.50; furniture bill, $44.80 — say .......... 319 00 (3) Taxes, $60; attorney's fees, $300; administrator's commission, $70; sundry other law charges, $70.80 — say .................................... 500 80 --------- Making total credits in favor of administrator ............................. $2,357 97
Deducting $2,357.97 from $3,819, leaves a net charge against the administrator, and balance in favor of the heirs, of $1,461.03, say $1,461.03. And his account must be amended and recast to accord with above.
Total debits against administrator .......... $3,819 00 Total credits in favor of administrator ..... 2,357 97 --------- Balance against administrator and in favor of the heirs of the deceased ................ $1,461 03
It is further ordered that there be judgment in favor of said heirs, and against said administrator, for the aforesaid sum of $1,461.03, with legal interest from this date until paid; and that said administrator pay all costs of these proceedings.
Addendum
The clause in the opinion reading "during the 22 months from November, 1918, to September, 1920, both inclusive," contains a clerical error, which, however, does not affect the result. The clause should read "during the 22 months from November, 1918, toAugust, 1920, both inclusive."
Rehearing refused.