81ST CONGRESS 1st Session } SENATE { REPORT No. 149 AMENDING SECTIONS 356 AND 365 OF THE ACT ENTITLED “AN ACT TO ESTABLISH A CODE OF LAW FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA," APPROVED MARCH 3, 1901, TO INCREASE THE MAXIMUM SUM ALLOWABLE BY THE COURT OUT OF THE ASSETS OF A DECEDENT'S ESTATE AS A PREFERRED CHARGE FOR HIS OR HER FUNERAL EXPENSES FROM $600 TO $1,000 MARCH 23 (legislative day, MARCH 18). 1949.-Ordered to be printed Mr. MCCARTHY, from the Committee on the District of Columbia, submitted the following REPORT (To accompany S. 1130] The Committee on the District of Columbia, to whom was referred the bill (S. 1130) to amend sections 356 and 365 of the act entitled "An act to establish a code of law for the District of Columbia," approved March 3, 1901, to increase the maximum sum allowable by the court out of the assets of a decedent's estate as a preferred charge for his or her funeral expenses from $600 to $1,000, having considered the same, report favorably thereon and recommend that the bill do pass with the following amendments: Strike out all that follows after the enacting clause and in lieu thereof insert the following: That section 356 of the Act entitled "An Act to establish a code of law for the District of Columbia", approved March 3, 1901 (title 18, sec. 520, D. C. Code, 1940), lines 1, 2, 3, and 4, are amended by striking out the words "after the payment of funeral expenses according to the condition and circumstances of the deceased, not exceeding six hundred dollars— and in lieu thereof inserting that in the payment of funeral expenses the court shall make a reasonable allowance for such funeral expenses according to the condition and circumstances of the deceased, not exceeding $1,000. Section 2. Section 365 of the act entitled "An act to establish a code of law for the District of Columbia," approved March 3, 1901, as amended by the act approved June 30, 1902 (title 20, sec. 605, D. C. Code, 1940) lines 5, 6, 7, and 8 are amended by striking outthree hundred dollars: Provided, That for special cause shown the court may make such additional allowance not exceeding three hundred dollars as such special circumstances may warrant. and inserting in lieu thereof the words one thousand dollars The purpose of the bill is to grant the United States District Court for the District of Columbia the power to pass upon the reasonableness of the charges for funeral expenses with a maximum therefor not to exceed $1,000. The Bar Association of the District of Columbia has recommended the bill and the bill also had the endorsement of the Commissioners of the District of Columbia as shown by their letter of transmittal quoted below: GOVERNMENT OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, The Honorable J. HOWARD MCGRATH, Chairman, Committee on the District of Columbia, United States Senate, Washington, D. C. MY DEAR SENATOR MCGRATH: The Commissioners have for report S. 1130, Eighty-first Congress, a bill to amend sections 356 and 365 of the act entitled "An act to establish a code of law for the District of Columbia," approved March 3, 1901, to increase the maximum sum allowable by the court out of the assets of a decedent's estate as a preferred charge for his or her funeral expenses from $600 to $1,000, upon which a subcommittee of the Senate District Committee held a hearing on March 11, 1949. This bill was endorsed by the District of Columbia Bar Association which presented the following justification: "The Register of Wills would continue, under his general powers, to approve funeral bills up to $300 (D. C. Code, 1940, sec. 19-403): and the limit which might be approved by the court as a preferred charge would be increased by striking 'six hundred' (D. C. Code 1940, sec. 18-520, line 4) and substituting one thousand'; and by striking 'three hundred' (D. C. Code, sec. 20-605, line 7) and substituting 'seven hundred.' "The primary pertinent fact here is that the dollar has shrunk in value since our $600 limit was fixed in 1901. "That tax schedules permit deductions for funeral expenses allowed by the court is a reason for modernizing our statute. Our prime purpose, however, is not to create a tax exemption, but to arrive at a proper gage for the allowance of funeral expenses as a preferred charge, in a probate court fiduciary's account. "A funeral performs the socially necessary act of interment, in such way as to be a tribute to the dead, and yet also to serve the sensibilities of the survivors, according to decedent's apparent means and standing in life. Under our present statute, an administrator or executor could be certain of having funeral expenses allowed, as a preferred charge, if it was within the legal limit of $600 and if consistent with decedent's circumstances, as they appeared to be at death. Testacy or intestacy, solvency or insolvency (factors which are not ascertainable, with legal certainty, at the time of burial) should not enter into the definition or formulation of the legal limit for funeral expenses. Hence we have changed our present statute only by increasing the figure from $600 to $1,000. "Thus insolvency, if apparent at the time of death, would be a proper consideration in fixing the preferred charge for funeral expenses at less than the legal maxmum; but if not then apparent, it should not prevent an allowance up to the legal limit, in any case which otherwise justified that amount. "If decedent dies testate and solvent, with directions in his will for a funeral exceeding the legal limit, such excess is so approved (without regard then to the preferred charge limit) just as an expenditure would be approved in a solvent estate, pursuant to a legacy for a mausoleum, monument, or other memorial 'Even then the statute would control where the estate is insolvent. Funeral expenses are not strictly a debt of the decedent unless made so by him. Hence to treat the whole or any part as a general debt would disregard the peculiar and preferred nature of the claim.' Nat. Met. Bk. and Doherty, Gawler's Sons, U. S. App. D. C. —, decided June 14, 1948. * "In our probate procedure, where no judge having power of decision passes upon probate matters daily, or for any extended, continuous period of time, it is peculiarly appropriate to state the maximum limit, as heretofore, by a definite sum in dollars. In fixing that figure at $1,000 this committee was influenced somewhat by the case cited above. Some advance is obviously justified; and $1,000 seems equally obviously not too high.” For the reasons indicated in the above justification the Commissioners recommend favorable action on S. 1130. Time has not permitted the ascertainment of advice from the Bureau of the Budget as to the relationship of this legislation to the program of the President. Respectfully, JOHN RUSSELL YOUNG, President, Board of Commissioners. 81ST CONGRESS 1st Session SENATE { REPORT No. 150 AMENDING SECTIONS 260, 267, 309, 315, 348, 350, AND 361 OF THE ACT ENTITLED "AN ACT TO ESTABLISH A CODE OF LAW FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA," APPROVED MARCH 3, 1901, TO PROVIDE THAT ESTATES OF DECEDENTS BEING ADMINISTERED WITHIN THE PROBATE COURT MAY BE SETTLED AT THE ELECTION OF THE PERSONAL REPRESENTATIVE OF THE DECEDENT IN THAT COURT 6 MONTHS AFTER HIS QUALIFICATION AS SUCH PERSONAL REPRESENTATIVE MARCH 23 (legislative day March 18), 1949.—Ordered to be printed. Mr. MCCARTHY, from the Committee on the District of Columbia, submitted the following REPORT (To accompany S. 1131] The Committee on the District of Columbia, to whom was referred the bill (S. 1131) to amend sections 260, 267, 309, 315, 348, 350, and 361 of the act entitled "An act to establish a code of law for the District of Columbia," approved March 3, 1901, to provide that estates of decedents being administered within the probate court may be settled at the election of the personal representative of the decedent in that court 6 months after his qualification as such personal representative, having considered the same, report favorably thereon with amendments and recommend that the bill do pass. The amendments are as follows: Page 2, line 7, strike out the words "word" and "thirty", and insert in lieu thereof the following words: "within thirty days after the first publication". Page 2, line 7, at the end of the line, strike out the word "word" and insert in lieu thereof the word "words". Page 2, line 8, strike out the word "ten" and insert in lieu thereof the following: "within ten days after publication". Page 2, line 14, strike out the figure "14" and insert in lieu thereof the figure "18". The purpose of the bill is to permit the closing of estates in the regular course of administration within 6 months of the appointment of the personal representative. |