Summary
In Bolles v. Toledo Trust Co., Exr., 136 Ohio St. 517, 27 N.E.2d 145, this court held that the Probate Court is vested with full power to determine what property is lawfully included in an inventory as assets, and incidental thereto has jurisdiction to inquire whether inventoried personal property belongs to an exceptor as the beneficiary of a trust.
Summary of this case from In re Estate of GottwaldOpinion
No. 27670
Decided April 24, 1940.
Res judicata — Personalty adjudicated assets of estate and included in inventory — Defense in action to engraft trust upon same property, when.
A final adjudication, that certain inventoried personal property is assets of a decedent's estate and lawfully included in the inventory thereof in a proceeding instituted in Probate Court by filing exceptions to the inventory, is res judicata when properly pleaded as a defense in a subsequent action brought by the person, who in the former proceeding was exceptor, to engraft a trust for his use and benefit upon the same personal property.
APPEAL from the Court of Appeals of Lucas county.
On May 8, 1937, Clara C. Bolles brought an action in the Court of Common Pleas of Lucas county, Ohio, against The Toledo Trust Company, as executor of the last will and testament of George A. Bolles, deceased (the sole defendant), praying that the court declare a trust in her favor in and to certain corporate stocks, notes secured by mortgages and a registered certificate of deposit of bonds, the appraised value of all of which is about $215,000, and order the defendant to execute such trust and transfer, turn over and deliver such personal property to the plaintiff as beneficiary or make such other order as will enable the plaintiff to receive the benefits of the trust.
The alleged trust is based upon a claimed agreement or understanding between her and her late husband George A. Bolles, who died on August 8, 1933.
The above personal property which plaintiff claims constitutes the corpus of the trust was in a safety deposit box at the time of her husband's death and since a short time after his decease has been in the possession of the executor.
The defendant in its answer sets up the defense of res judicata, the material allegations of which are as follows:
It is averred that exceptions were filed by the exceptor, Clara C. Bolles, in the Probate Court of Lucas county, to the inventory returned by the executor (defendant herein), that upon hearing of these exceptions the Probate Court overruled the same, and that thereupon the exceptor took an appeal to the Court of Common Pleas of Lucas county. In that court in which the cause was pending for trial de novo amended exceptions were filed by the exceptor. It appears from the amended exceptions, which are set out in full in this defense in the answer, that the exceptor asserted and averred that the personal property was given to her by decedent in his lifetime and became the exclusive property of the exceptor and that such property was not part of the assets of the estate and should not have been included in the inventory of the estate. The exceptor concludes with a prayer that the property be excluded from the inventory of the assets of the estate of the decedent.
This defense also contains allegations that the Court of Common Pleas after hearing the evidence on the amended exceptions sustained them, that thereafter the Court of Appeals affirmed the judgment of the Court of Common Pleas upon such amended exceptions and that the Supreme Court reversed the judgment of the Court of Appeals, and, proceeding to render the judgment the Court of Appeals should have rendered, "ordered and adjudged that the judgment of the Court of Common Pleas be, and the same hereby is, reversed and final judgment is hereby rendered in favor of the appellants," The Toledo Trust Company, as executor of the last will and testament of George A. Bolles, deceased, and Barbara Ruth Bolles, a minor, by Gustavus Ohlinger, guardian ad litem.
The plaintiff in her reply does not deny these allegations but does deny that the facts alleged constituted an estoppel by former adjudication.
As will appear hereinafter, issues made by the pleadings other than res judicata do not enter into or affect the disposition of the case.
On the trial of this cause in the Court of Common Pleas a printed copy of the transcript of the evidence filed in the Supreme Court in the former case was admitted in evidence. In addition witnesses who testified in the former case were called. Their testimony consisted largely of giving more in detail statements made by George A. Bolles to the effect that he was putting securities in the safety box for his wife.
With reference to the defense of res judicata there was also offered in evidence the exceptions filed in the Probate Court, amended exceptions filed in the Court of Common Pleas and the journal entries of the Probate Court, Court of Common Pleas, Court of Appeals and the Supreme Court showing the action taken with reference to the proceedings on the exceptions and amended exceptions in the former case.
The Court of Common Pleas held that res judicata and the other defenses were not made out and that the trust existed, adjudged and decreed the equitable title to the property to be in the plaintiff as beneficiary and ordered the executor to account to her therefor.
On appeal to the Court of Appeals on questions of law and fact that court entered a like decree in favor of the plaintiff. Thereupon this court allowed a motion to certify the record and the cause is here for review.
Messrs. Welles, Kelsey, Cobourn Harrington, for appellee.
Messrs. Beckwith, Ohlinger, Koles Wolf and Mr. Lawrence Linville, for appellant.
The Toledo Trust Company, defendant herein, relies upon the defense of res judicata which was properly pleaded. If this court holds that this defense was made out as a matter of law under the pleadings and evidence, it is not necessary to inquire into the other assignments of error.
This defense is based upon the adjudication in the case of Bolles v. Toledo Trust Co., 132 Ohio St. 21, 4 N.E.2d 917.
In that case the amended exceptions to the inventory raised the question whether the personal property (identical with that now in litigation) was lawfully included as assets in the inventory filed in Probate Court by The Toledo Trust Company, as executor of the last will and testament of George A. Bolles, deceased.
The exceptor, Clara C. Bolles (plaintiff herein), relied wholly on the claim that (George A. Bolles, her deceased husband, in his lifetime made a valid and binding gift of the property to her and it was therefore not assets of the estate; in that cause she made no contention that the property was hers by virtue of a trust of which she was the beneficiary. This court held that the essentials of a valid gift inter vivos were not present and, in effect, that the exceptions should be overruled and that the personal property was properly included in the inventory as assets of the estate.
The plaintiff herein, having been a party in the first case, is bound by the judgment. She contends, however, that in claiming the same property as cestui que trust an entirely new issue is made in the instant case and that the former adjudication does not bar her right to have a trust engrafted now upon the identical res for her use and benefit.
The general rule is that a former adjudication settles all issues between the parties that could have been raised and decided as well as those that were decided. Covington Cincinnati Bridge Co. v. Sargent, 27 Ohio St. 233; City of Cincinnati v. Emerson, 57 Ohio St. 132, 48 N.E. 667; Northern Pacific Ry. Co. v. Slaght, 205 U.S. 122, 130, 51 L.Ed., 738, 27 S. Ct., 442.
Plaintiff insists, however, that a case on exceptions to an inventory is a special statutory proceeding at law and only questions of legal title may be considered. This view is not broad enough. Of course the Probate Court exercises limited jurisdiction and on appeal and trial de novo the jurisdiction of the Court of Common Pleas would not be extended beyond that of the court below. Nevertheless the Probate Court is vested with full power to determine what property is lawfully included in an inventory as assets and as incidental thereto has jurisdiction to inquire whether inventoried personal property belongs to an exceptor as the beneficiary of a trust. Under Section 10501-53, General Code, the Probate Court has "plenary power at law and in equity fully to dispose of any matter properly before the court," unless otherwise provided by statute. Compare Goodrich, Admr., v. Anderson, ante, 509. There is no statutory provision which limits or denies to that court power to hear and determine fully and completely all questions raised by exceptions to an inventory of the assets of a decedent's estate. The application of the doctrine of res judicata is not narrowed herein because the court of origin was not invested with general jurisdiction.
Since the doctrine applies here, the effect of its application must be determined.
Litigants should disclose all their claims and contentions so that there may be a timely end to litigation. By this token a plaintiff should not be permitted to split his claims so as to reserve a handle for the re-litigation of the same subject-matter. In the proceeding on the amended exceptions the exceptor, in maintaining that the property was not lawfully inventorial assets because of a previous gift, really split her claims. She could have put her contention in two-fold form, namely, that the property was hers as donee and, if the evidence failed to show a valid gift, then, that it was hers as cestui que trust. Either claim, if it prevailed, would result in the sustaining of the exceptions.
Manifestly the precise question made in the case at bar could have been raised in the former case.
There is still another criterion by which to compare the issues and judgments in the respective cases.
In testing a former adjudication to ascertain its efficacy as a bar to a subsequent action it is pertinent to inquire whether judgments rendered in the separate causes may both be enforced with consistency. How can both be given full effect? If the executor administers the property in dispute as assets of the estate it or the proceeds thereof after the payments of debts must be distributed according to the terms of the last will and testament. If the property is held in trust, the executor in possession cannot deal with it as part of the estate's assets but must release it from his custody as executor in fulfillment of the trust obligation. If both judgments be allowed to stand it is manifest that both cannot be enforced. The same personal property cannot at the same time be assets of a decedent's estate and the corpus of a separate and distinct trust.
The conflict that exists between the two judgments is illustrative of the principle which underlies res judicata. As has been stated by this court res judicata is in a sense a branch of the law of estoppel. Clark v. Baranowski, 111 Ohio St. 436, 145 N.E. 760. When in an action an issue is determined and judgment rendered, all parties are bound and thereafter are estopped from asserting rights in conflict therewith in subsequent litigation in the same or another judicial tribunal. The former adjudication that the property was assets of the estate can not be nullified by the subsequent adjudication that they are not estate assets but are held in trust for the benefit of Clara C. Bolles.
The admissions of the pleadings and the undisputed evidence with respect to the defense of res judicata compel this court to reverse the judgment of the Court of Appeals and enter final judgment for the defendant dismissing the petition of the plaintiff.
Judgment reversed and final judgment for appellant.
WEYGANDT, C.J., DAY, ZIMMERMAN, MYERS and MATTHIAS, JJ., concur.
HART, J., dissents.