Case Title: REESE v REESE

Citation: 

Docket Number: 81-218

State: montana

Court: Montana Supreme Court

Date: 1981-12-21T00:00:00Z

Document:
No. 8 1 - 2 1 8 I N THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA 1 9 8 1 NORVELL 0. REESE, and THE ESTATE OF NORVELL 0. REESE, DECEASED. P l a i n t i f f and A p p e l l a n t , -vs- STELLA R. REESE, D e f e n d a n t and R e s p o n d e n t . A p p e a l from: D i s t r i c t C o u r t of t h e N i n e t e e n t h J u d i c i a l D i s t r i c t , I n and for the C o u n t y of L i n c o l n , T h e H o n o r a b l e R o b e r t H o l t e r , Judge presiding. C o u n s e l of R e c o r d : For A p p e l l a n t : Ann C. G e r m a n , Missoula, Montana F o r R e s p o n d e n t : W i l l i a m A. D o u g l a s , L i b b y , Montana S u b m i t t e d on B r i e f s : N o v e m b e r 5 , 1 9 8 1 D e c i d e d : gEg,#l lgef F i l e d : r f c 2 i 1981 M r . Chief J u s t i c e Frank I. H a s w e l l d e l i v e r e d t h e Opinion of t h e Court. The q u e s t i o n i n t h i s appeal is whether a divorced w i f e ' s claim f o r money due h e r under a p r o p e r t y s e t t l e m e n t agreement is b a r r e d by h e r f a i l u r e t o commence an a c t i o n t h e r e o n a g a i n s t h e r deceased former husband's estate w i t h i n t h e t i m e provided i n t h e Uniform P r o b a t e Code. The ~ i s t r i c t Court h e l d h e r claim was n o t b a r r e d . W e a f f i r m . N o r v e l l Reese and S t e l l a Reese were divorced on A p r i l 7 , 1972. A p r o p e r t y s e t t l e m e n t agreement w a s i n c o r p o r a t e d i n t h e d e c r e e . Under its terms N o r v e l l r e c e i v e d c e r t a i n p r o p e r t y , assumed c e r t a i n t a x o b l i g a t i o n s , and agreed t o pay S t e l l a $18,000 i n monthly payments of $300. On May 22, 1978, S t e l l a f i l e d an a c t i o n a g a i n s t N o r v e l l s e e k i n g an a c c o u n t i n g and to set a s i d e h e r conveyance of pro- p e r t y under t h e p r o p e r t y s e t t l e m e n t agreement. S t e l l a claimed N o r v e l l had breached t h e agreement by h i s f a i l u r e to make t h e r e q u i r e d monthly payments. A h e a r i n g t h e r e o n was set f o r J u l y 6, 1978, b u t was c o n t i n u e d i n d e f i n i t e l y to be c a l l e d up by e i t h e r c o u n s e l on 10 d a y s n o t i c e . On September 1 2 , 1979, N o r v e l l d i e d . P r i o r to h i s d e a t h h e had r e m a r r i e d , and h i s s u r v i v i n g s p o u s e , D a n i e l l e , was a p p o i n t e d p e r s o n a l r e p r e s e n t a t i v e of h i s estate . Not ice t o cre- d i t o r s was f i r s t p u b l i s h e d on October 1 2 , 1979. On February 7 , 1980, S t e l l a f i l e d a claim a g a i n s t h i s estate f o r $7,117 p l u s i n t e r e s t encompassing t h e money due h e r under t h e p r o p e r t y s e t t l e m e n t agreement i n t h e d i v o r c e d e c r e e . The p e r s o n a l r e p r e - s e n t a t i v e of N o r v e l l ' s estate took no a c t i o n on S t e l l a ' s claim. On November 1 7 , 1980, a h e a r i n g w a s h e l d i n S t e l l a ' s a c t i o n f o r an a c c o u n t i n g and to s e t a s i d e h e r conveyance of pro- p e r t y under t h e p r o p e r t y s e t t l e m e n t agreement. The D i s t r i c t C o u r t of L i n c o l n County denied t h e estate's motion to d i s m i s s t h e a c t i o n and e n t e r e d judgment f o r S t e l l a i n t h e amount of $7,117 p l u s i n t e r e s t and c o s t s , t h e amount of N o r v e l l u s i n d e b t e d n e s s to h e r under t h e p r o p e r t y s e t t l e m e n t agreement. The p e r s o n a l r e p r e - s e n t a t i v e of N o r v e l l ' s estate a p p e a l s from t h e d e n i a l of h e r motion to d i s m i s s . The s u b s t a n c e of t h e estate's c o n t e n t i o n is t h a t S t e l l a ' s claim f i l e d i n t h e p r o b a t e p r o c e e d i n g s was e f f e c t i v e l y d i s a l l o w e d on A p r i l 1 2 , 1980, 60 d a y s a f t e r t h e l a s t day f o r p r e s e n t a t i o n of claims a g a i n s t t h e estate; t h a t S t e l l a had 60 d a y s t h e r e a f t e r i n which to commence an a c t i o n a g a i n s t t h e p e r s o n a l r e p r e s e n t a t i v e o n h e r d i s a l l o w e d claim; and t h a t S t e l l a ' s f a i l u r e t o commence s u c h a c t i o n w i t h i n such t i m e f o r e v e r b a r r e d h e r claim a g a i n s t t h e estate i n c l u d i n g S t e l l a ' s a c t i o n f o r an accounting and to set a s i d e h e r conveyance of p r o p e r t y to N o r v e l l . Montana's Uniform P r o b a t e Code governs t h e manner of p r e s e n t a t i o n , allowance and d i s a l l o w a n c e of claims a g a i n s t a d e c e d e n t ' s estate. It p r o v i d e s a l t e r n a t i v e methods of presen- t a t i o n of such claims: (1) m a i l i n g a w r i t t e n s t a t e m e n t of t h e claim t o t h e p e r s o n a l r e p r e s e n t a t i v e , ( 2 ) f i l i n g a w r i t t e n state- ment of t h e claim w i t h t h e c o u r t , or ( 3 ) commencing a proceeding a g a i n s t t h e p e r s o n a l r e p r e s e n t a t i v e w i t h i n t h e time allowed f o r p r e s e n t a t i o n of claims. S e c t i o n 72-3-804, MCA. The Code f u r t h e r p r o v i d e s i n p e r t i n e n t p a r t : "No p r e s e n t a t i o n of claim is r e q u i r e d i n regard t o matters claimed i n p r o c e e d i n g s a g a i n s t t h e d e c e d e n t which were pending a t t h e t i m e of h i s d e a t h . " S e c t i o n 72-3-804(2), MCA. Where, as h e r e , t h e language of a s t a t u t e is p l a i n , unambiguous, d i r e c t and c e r t a i n , t h e r e is nothing l e f t f o r t h e C o u r t to c o n s t r u e . Dunphy v. Anaconda Co. ( 1 9 6 8 ) , 1 5 1 Mont. 76, 438 P.2d 660, and cases c i t e d t h e r e i n . I n such c a s e , t h e func- t i o n of t h e Court is s i m p l y to a s c e r t a i n and d e c l a r e what is i n terms or i n s u b s t a n c e c o n t a i n e d t h e r e i n , n o t to i n s e r t what h a s been o m i t t e d or omit what h a s been i n s e r t e d . S e c t i o n 1-2-101, MCA; White v. White ( 1 9 8 1 ) , Mont . - P.2d t 38 St.Rep. 2041. The p l a i n meaning of t h i s s t a t u t e is t h a t a c l a i m a n t is n o t r e q u i r e d to p r e s e n t a claim to t h e p e r s o n a l r e p r e s e n t a t i v e of a d e c e d e n t ' s estate where such claim is t h e s u b j e c t of a l e g a l p r o c e e d i n g a g a i n s t t h e d e c e d e n t pending a t t h e time of h i s d e a t h . Here S t e l l a ' s a c t i o n a g a i n s t N o r v e l l f o r an accounting and to set a s i d e a p r o p e r t y conveyance encompassed t h e amounts due h e r under t h e p r o p e r t y s e t t l e m e n t agreement. It was pending and uncompleted a t t h e t i m e of N o r v e l l ' s d e a t h . P r e s e n t a t i o n of h e r claim and f i l i n g an a c t i o n t h e r e o n f o l l o w i n g d i s a l l o w a n c e w a s n o t r e q u i r e d under t h e p l a i n language of s e c t i o n 72-3-804(2), MCA. F i n a l l y , t h e judgment f o r t h e unpaid money due h e r under t h e p r o p e r t y s e t t l e m e n t agreement c o n s t i t u t e s an allowance of h e r claims. The a p p l i c a b l e s t a t u t e states i n p e r t i n e n t p a r t : " A judgment i n a proceeding i n a n o t h e r c o u r t a g a i n s t a p e r s o n a l r e p r e s e n t a t i v e to e n f o r c e a claim a g a i n s t a d e c e d e n t ' s estate is an a l l o w a n c e of t h e claim." S e c t i o n 72-3-805(3) , MCA. W e c o n s t r u e t h e language " i n a n o t h e r c o u r t " to mean out- s i d e t h e p r o b a t e c o u r t and t h e estate p r o c e e d i n g s . Although both t h e p r o b a t e p r o c e e d i n g s and S t e l l a ' s pending c i v i l s u i t were f i l e d and heard i n t h e District Court of L i n c o l n County, t h e c o u r t was s i t t i n g i n p r o b a t e i n t h e estate p r o c e e d i n g s and func- t i o n i n g as a c i v i l c o u r t i n a d j u d i c a t i n g S t e l l a ' s claim f o r a c c o u n t i n g and to set a s i d e t h e p r o p e r t y conveyance. W e do n o t reach t h e i s s u e of whether S t e l l a ' s f a i l u r e to s u b s t i t u t e t h e p e r s o n a l r e p r e s e n t a t i v e i n h e r c i v i l a c t i o n a g a i n s t N o r v e l l r e q u i r e s v a c a t i n g t h e judgment and d i s m i s s i n g t h e a c t i o n . The estate f u l l y p a r t i c i p a t e d i n t h i s a c t i o n , t h e i s s u e w a s n o t r a i s e d i n t h e D i s t r i c t Court, and t h e i s s u e w a s n o t i n c l u d e d i n t h e agreed s t a t e m e n t of t h e case submitted by t h e p a r t i e s p u r s u a n t to Rule 9 ( d ) , M.R.App.Civ.P. The D i s t r i c t C o u r t ' s d e n i a l of t h e estate's motion to d i s m i s s S t e l l a ' s c i v i l a c t i o n f o r an a c c o u n t i n g and to set a s i d e h e r p r o p e r t y conveyance is af f irmed . Chief Justice I__-.