FALL V. MILLER
462 N.E.2d 1059 (1934)

PROCEDURAL POSTURE: Appellant legatee sought review of a decision of the Putnam Circuit Court (Indiana), which overruled the legatee's petition objecting to the final account and proposed distribution of the decedent's estate, which was prepared by appellee executrix.


FACTS: Decedent bequeathed certain stock to Fall. During the administration of the estate, the executrix petitioned the court without Fall's knowledge or consent to sell the stock, alleging mat it was necessary to do so to pay debts and expenses of the estate. The petition was granted but mis was a mistake made by the executrix. Eight months later, her attorney acknowledge the mistake in a letter and promised to compensate him or replace the stock. Thereafter the executrix, without knowledge of Fall, reacquired equal shares of the stock at market, but mat price was lower man the price of the earlier sale as the stock had fallen in value. The executrix proposed to distribute the shares to Fall and to retain the profit in the residue which was to be divided between herself and others. Fall objected and the trial court ruled against him. This appeal resulted.

ISSUE: Is an executrix a fiduciary with the same responsibilities of a trustee?

RULE OF LAW: An executrix is a fiduciary with the same responsibilities of a trustee

HOLDING: . The Circuit Court, Putnam County, William C. Vaughn, III, J., ruled against the legatee, and he appealed. The Court of Appeals, Neal, P.J., held that: (1) legatee of the stock was entitled to the stock and all profits made by executrix in wrongfully dealing with it, and (2) legatee was entitled to statutory interest on his specific legacy from one year after date of decedent's death to date of distribution of the entire legacy. Judgment reversed.

ANALYSIS: Decedent died testate and bequeathed certain corporate stock to the legatee. During the course of the administration, the executrix, without the legatee's consent, sold the stock, falsely alleging that it was necessary to pay debts of the estate. The executrix's attorney contacted the legatee and told him that he was to be compensated for the sale. Again, without the legatee's knowledge or consent, the executrix acquired equal shares of the stock, and in her final account she proposed to distribute those shares to the legatee and retain the profit from the transaction to be distributed to other legatees. The trial court overruled the legatee's petition objecting to the final account. On appeal, the court reversed. The executrix held the legatee's stock in a fiduciary capacity and wrongly sold it. Neither she, nor anyone claiming through her, was permitted to retain the profits of the transaction. The legatee, as equitable owner of the stock, was entitled to the stock and all profits made from the executrix wrongfully dealing in it. The legatee was entitled to statutory interest on his legacy because there were sufficient other assets of the estate to cover administrative costs.