AMENDING SECTIONS 356 AND 365 OF THE ACT TO ESTABLISH A CODE OF LAW FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA 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

JUNE 7, 1949. Referred to the House Calendar and ordered to be printed

Mr. HARRIS, from the Committee on the District of Columbia, submitted the following

REPORT

To accompany H. R. 33681

The Committee on the District of Columbia, to whom was referred the bill (H. R. 3368) 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 without amendment and recommend that the bill do pass.

The purpose of this bill, as stated in the title, is 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.

The Commissioners of the District of Columbia approved the enactment of this legislation.

The District of Columbia Bar Association proposed this bill and submitted 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.

12 months before securing what, if anything, remains after paying those expenses, funeral bills, and creditors. Only if the estate is insolvent is the exemption statute applied (Cogswell, Bar Journal, September 1936, p. 14). See Proceedings of the Judicial Conference, District of Columbia Bar Journal (1947), pages 458–468,

500-505.

Like most local probate law, this act (bill) is modeled on the Maryland Small Estates Act of March 29, 1945. Theodore Cogswell, Register of Wills, is in accord with the sentiment for a minimum figure of $1,000 (Bar Journal, 1947, p. 463). This act (bill) follows the Judicial Conference topic (id., p. 458) and its vote (id., p. 504); and if so enacted it will admit fewer estates to be thus handled during the period the Register of Wills is initiating the procedure, than if the limit were higher. This bar association committee will agree to passage of the act (bill) with a higher limit, but the act (bill) should not be lost, nor longer delayed, through any issue as to the limit to be applied.

The Commissioners of the District of Columbia approved this bill.

AMENDING SECTIONS 356 AND 365 OF THE ACT TO ESTABLISH A CODE OF LAW FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA 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

JUNE 7, 1949.-Referred to the House Calendar and ordered to be printed

Mr. HARRIS, from the Committee on the District of Columbia, submitted the following

REPORT

To accompany H. R. 33681

The Committee on the District of Columbia, to whom was referred the bill (H. R. 3368) 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 without amendment and recommend that the bill do pass.

The purpose of this bill, as stated in the title, is to increase the maximum sum allowable by the court out of the assets of a decedent's preferred charge for his or her funeral expenses.

estate as a

The Commissioners of the District of Columbia approved the enactment of this legislation.

The District of Columbia Bar Association proposed this bill and submitted 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 sub

stituting "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 tor 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 appear 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 maximum; 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.

CHANGES IN EXISTING LAW

In compliance with paragraph 2a of rule XIII of the Rules of the House of Representatives, changes in existing law made by the bill, as introduced, are shown as follows (existing law proposed to be omitted is enclosed in black brackets, new matter is printed in italics, existing law in which no change is proposed is shown in roman):

In paying the debts of a decedent, after the payment of funeral expenses according to the condition and circumstances of the deceased, not exceeding [six hundred] one thousand dollars an executor or administrator shall observe the following rules: Claims for rent in arrear against deceased persons, for which an attachment might be levied by law, shall have preference. Judgments and decrees of courts in the District of Columbia shall next be wholly discharged. After such claims for rent, judgments, and decrees shail be satisfied, all other just claims shall be on an equal footing without priority or preference. If there be not sufficient to discharge all such judgments and decrees, a proportionate dividend shall be made between the judgment and decree creditors.

SEC. 2. * * *

On the other side shall be stated the disbursements by him made, namely: First. Funeral expenses, to be allowed at the discretion of the court, according to the condition and circumstances of the deceased, not exceeding three 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.] Provided, That for special cause shown the court may make such additional allowance not exceeding seven hundred dollars as such special circumstances may warrant. Second. The debts of the deceased proved or passed as herein directed, and paid or retained. Third. The allowance for things lost, or which have perished without the party's fault, which allowance shall be according to the appraisement. Fourth. His commissions, which shall be at the discretion of the court, not under one per centum nor exceeding ten per centum on the amount of the inventory or inventories, excluding what is lost or perished. Fifth. His allowance for costs, attorneys' fees, and extraordinary expenses which the court may think proper to allow.

O

AMENDING THE ACT ENTITLED "AN ACT TO REGULATE

THE PRACTICE OF OPTOMETRY IN THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA"

JUNE 7, 1949.-Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union and ordered to be printed

Mr. ABERNETHY, from the Committee on the District of Columbia, submitted the following

REPORT

(To accompany H. R. 4237)

The Committee on the District of Columbia, to whom was referred the bill (H. R. 4237) to amend the act entitled "An act to regulate the practice of optometry in the District of Columbia," having considered the same, report favorably thereon with amendments and recommend that the bill H. R. 4237, do pass.

The amendments are as follows:

Page 9, line 18, strike the figure "8" and insert in lieu thereof the figure "9".

Page 9, line 24, strike the word "medicine".

This bill proposes to redefine the practice of optometry, to regulate and improve the practice of optometry, to eliminate certain types of advertising, to declare what acts shall be prohibited and the penalty therefor; and to provide for a review of the decisions of the Board of Optometry in the matter of the denial, suspension or revocation of licenses by the United States District Court for the District of Columbia.

The Commissioners of the District of Columbia in their report approving the enactment of H. R. 4237 said in part:

The proposed legislation is a compromise measure which has the concurrence of the principal opponents and proponents of H. R. 2057 of the Eighty-first Congress, first session. The Commissioners held a public hearing on the latter bill and when it appeared that certain interests were opposed to some of its provisions, the Corporation Counsel was directed to confer with the representatives of the several interests with a view to resolving the matters in controversy.

A conference was held and there followed recommendations from the Commissioners that the bill be amended. The two amendments recommended were adopted by the committee.

H. Repts., 81-1, vol. 4-15