DocketNumber: No. 34,173
Citation Numbers: 149 Kan. 428, 87 P.2d 550
Judges: Hocit
Filed Date: 3/4/1939
Status: Precedential
Modified Date: 9/8/2022
The opinion of the court was delivered by
This case relates to disposition of funds derived from an adjusted compensation certificate held by a World War veteran at the time of his death. The case is here on appeal from the district court of Bourbon county.
William A. Phelps, a veteran of the World War, died testate in Bourbon county, on April 11, 1935. The provisions of the will here involved are as follows:
“First. I direct that all my funeral expenses, also my personal doctor bill, be paid out of my adjusted service certificate of the World War.
“Second. I give and bequeath to my son, Billy Gene Phelps, the remainder of my estate. My last will and testament naming Florence E. Phelps, my mother, as guardian to serve without bond. I entrust my mother so to do without the intervention of any court.”
The remaining credit value of the certificate — a certain loan from the government having been charged against the certificate — was $660.30. Deceased left no other assets. A number of claims against the estate were filed in the probate court. The record is not clear as to which ones have been paid by the executrix. Among the claims was one for $178 by Doctors Newman and Young, and one for $495 by the Konantz undertaking firm.
The district court, reversing the probate court, held, upon an agreed statement of facts, that the] bills of the undertaker and the doctors should be paid, that no other claims or debts should be paid from the fund and that the remainder of the fund, if any, should be paid to Billy Gene Phelps, son of the deceased. Hattie Young Phelps, mother and natural guardian of Billy Gene Phelps, a minor, appeals, contending that payments to the doctors and undertaker cannot lawfully be made for the reason that the fund is not liable under federal law for payment of debts.
It is true that under the World War adjusted compensation act the funds derived therefrom are not “subject to attachment, levy, or seizure under any legal or equitable process.” The statutory provision has been modified but not weakened since the death of the veteran in this case. The provision in effect at the time of his death was as follows:
“No sum payable under this act to a veteran or his dependents, or to his estate, or to any beneficiary named under Title Y, no adjusted service certificate, and no proceeds of any loan made on such certificate shall be subject to attachment, levy, or seizure under any legal or equitable process, or to national or state taxation, and no deductions on account of any indebtedness of the veteran to the United States shall be made from the adjusted service credit or from any amounts due under this act.” (44 Stat. 827, e. 751, § 3 (a); 38 U. S. C. A. § 618.)
It is well established that the federal government has broad power to impress funds of this character with such limitations. Aside from directions in the will creditors of the estate could not maintain claims against the estate to be paid out of this fund. The question is whether the veteran had a right to direct such payment.
Subsequent to the death of the veteran, Phelps, amendments to
“Change op Beneficiary
Approved by Frank E. Zuber
Date 10-23-35
For the Administrator.”
In March, 1937, after being fully advised, the veterans’ administration paid to Florence E. Phelps, executrix of the will, tbfc sum of $660.30.
The federal act itself does not define the term “beneficiary,” and the ordinary meaning must be given to it. The essence of the term is that it indicates the person to whom the insured desires the money to go in case of his death. The intention of the testator in .this case is unmistakable. He desired to have the doctors and- the undertaker paid from the fund and the remainder go to his son. He named no others and no other payments could lawfully be made from the fund. All provisions of the law having been complied with, we see no lawful basis for setting aside the direction for disposition of the fund which the testator had a clear right to give.
The testator directed that the fund first be used for payment of his funeral expenses and his personal doctor bill. No question is here raised as to ascertainable identity of the doctor or the undertaker. It will be noted, however, that the testator fixed no certain amounts which they were to be paid. It was and is the clear duty
The judgment of the trial court is affirmed.