Case Title: ESTATE OF SCHANBACHER

Citation: 

Docket Number: 14605

State: montana

Court: Montana Supreme Court

Date: 1979-05-30T00:00:00Z

Document:
No. 14605 THE s U P F ? E R E C O W O F THE STATE O F MXI?ANA -- I N THE IWlTER OF THE ESTATE RALPH I . scxmEAm, Deceased. Appeal f m : D i s t r i c t Court of the Thirteenth Judicial District, Honorable Nat Allen, Judge presiding. Counsel of Record: For Appellant : Robert L. Stephens, Jr., Billings, mntana For Respondent : Berger, Anderson, Sinclair & Murphy, Billings, l~ntana Efmer Dolve, Billings, mntana Suhnitted on briefs: Nbrch 29, 1979 Decided: MAY 3 0 1979 Filed: . MAY 8 9 198 - . - M r . J u s t i c e John Conway Harrison d e l i v e r e d t h e Opinion of t h e Court. T h i s appeal i s from a summary judgment of t h e D i s t r i c t Court, T h i r t e e n t h J u d i c i a l D i s t r i c t , County of Yellowstone, t h e Honorable N a t Allen p r e s i d i n g . The summary judgment was dated September 19, 1978, and was g r a n t e d on a motion on behalf of E d i t h E l l i s , t h e personal r e p r e s e n t a t i v e h e r e i n , i n i t s e n t i r e t y and dismissing t h e p e t i t i o n s of E l s i e L e s t e r , Margaret Joan Lester, and Roberta Louise Lester with p r e j u d i c e . The c o u r t a l s o denied a motion f o r summary judgment of E l s i e L e s t e r , Margaret Joan L e s t e r , and Roberta Louise L e s t e r . I n t h i s opinion, Ralph I. Schanbacher, t h e deceased h e r e i n , w i l l be r e f e r r e d t o a s "Ralph" and E l s i e Jane L e s t e r , one of t h e a p p e l l a n t s , w i l l be r e f e r r e d t o a s " E l s i e " . Ralph I. Schanbacher, a l s o known a s Ralph I. L e s t e r , married Norvall Fern Johnson on November 8, 1916, i n Newton, Kansas. There were f o u r c h i l d r e n born of t h i s marriage including E d i t h E l l i s , 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 h e r e i n . This marriage continued u n t i l F e r n ' s d e a t h i n B i l l i n g s , Montana, i n September 1973. Throughout h i s l i f e Ralph was a c a t t l e buyer. H e a l s o owned and operated s e v e r a l ranch p r o p e r t i e s and a f e e d l o t a t Lewistown, Montana. I n t h i s business he was r e q u i r e d t o spend considerable t i m e on t h e road and away from h i s family. This was s o n o t only during h i s marriage t o Fern, b u t l a t e r , i n h i s l i v i n g arrangement w i t h E l s i e . E l s i e was t h e widow of Norman Lester, and was introduced t o Ralph by Norman L e s t e r , who introduced Ralph a s h i s cousin Ralph L e s t e r . E l s i e m e t Ralph i n 1947 when s h e was working i n a c o f f e e shop i n Amarillo, Texas, b u t it w a s n o t u n t i l a f t e r t h e death of her husband Norman t h a t they began t o d a t e , some- t i m e i n t h e year 1952. Ralph t o l d E l s i e t h a t he had been married b u t t h a t h i s wife w a s deceased. After going together f o r a period of t i m e , they discussed marriage and, according t o E l s i e , they went t o Clovis, New Mexico, where on November 1 4 , 1952, a wedding ceremony w a s performed i n t h e home of a congrega- t i o n a l m i n i s t e r . A year o r s o l a t e r , E l s i e found o u t t h a t Ralph d i d have another wife and t h a t h i s name was Schan- bacher. When confronted with t h i s information, Ralph t o l d E l s i e t h a t he d i d n o t l i v e with Fern, d i d not c a r e f o r h e r , and t h a t he merely used t h e name of Schanbacher as a busi- ness name. I n her deposition, E l s i e s t a t e d t h a t when she g o t t h i s information, she was worried about a p o s s i b l e bigamy charge a g a i n s t Ralph, t h a t they loved each o t h e r , and t h a t because he assured her t h a t he d i d n o t c a r e f o r h i s f i r s t wife and was n o t l i v i n g with her, she d i d n o t t a k e any l e g a l a c t i o n . A t t h e beginning of her r e l a t i o n s h i p with Ralph, E l s i e had t h r e e c h i l d r e n , two boys by her f i r s t marriage which had ended i n a divorce, and a g i r l by her marriage t o Norman L e s t e r , who was k i l l e d i n an automobile accident. Through- o u t t h e period t h a t she l i v e d with Ralph, he supported t h e s e c h i l d r e n and claimed them a s h i s own. Ralph and E l s i e a l s o had two c h i l d r e n , Margaret Joan Lester born June 7 , 1956, i n Amarillo, Texas, and Xoberta Louise L e s t e r born September 1 4 , 1960, i n Amarillo. O n both b i r t h c e r t i f i c a t e s t h e name Ralph I. Lester i s given as t h e f a t h e r . Ralph and E l s i e l i v e d together i n Amarillo, Texas, where they purchased a home and l i v e d u n t i l 1957; they l i v e d i n Austin, Texas, b r i e f l y ; and they l i v e d i n ~ i l l i n g s i n a motel f o r a s h o r t p e r i o d of t i m e and l a t e r r e n t e d a home, although Ralph continued t o t r a v e l e x t e n s i v e l y i n h i s cattle buying ventures. A f t e r 1957 t h e couple l i v e d i n Amarillo, Texas; Denver, Colorado; ~ i l e s C i t y , idontana; Great F a l l s , Montana; ~ ~ I i s s o u l a , Montana; Casper, Wyoming; and a t one t i m e , they l i v e d for a p e r i o d of two y e a r s i n Lewistown, Montana, where they pur- chased a home. I n a d d i t i o n , they owned a home i n Florence, Montana, and r e n t e d property i n Butte, Bozeman, and Cheyenne, Wyoming. A l l of t h i s property was purchased o r r e n t e d under t h e name of Ralph I. Lester. I n 1972 Ralph s u f f e r e d a s t r o k e i n B i l l i n g s , and E l s i e came t o B i l l i n g s and stayed w i t h him a t t h e Ponderosa Inn. She r e t u r n e d f o r a s h o r t p e r i o d of t i m e t o Cheyenne, where they had been l i v i n g , and then r e t u r n e d t o B i l l i n g s a t which t i m e they r e n t e d a mobile home. During t h i s t i m e Ralph's f i r s t w i f e d i e d , which was i n September 1973. I n March 1974 Ralph and E l s i e moved t o 3304 Winchell Lane i n B i l l i n g s , where they r e n t e d an apartment and l i v e d t o g e t h e r a s husband and w i f e u n t i l h i s death. While l i v i n g i n t h i s apartment under t h e name of L e s t e r , Ralph had a n u n l i s t e d telephone number i n s t a l l e d under t h e name Schan- bacher f o r business purposes. A f f i d a v i t s w e r e submitted by neighbors and f r i e n d s of Ralph and E l s i e t o t h e e f f e c t t h a t they s o c i a l i z e d w i t h Ralph and E l s i e , had d i n n e r s t o g e t h e r , v i s i t e d each o t h e r ' s f a m i l i e s , and t h a t t h e s e f r i e n d s and neighbors recognized E l s i e and Ralph a s husband and wife and t h a t they held themselves o u t t o be t h e same. During t h e 24 y e a r s t h a t Ralph and E l s i e l i v e d to- g e t h e r , according t o E l s i e , he provided f o r h e r very w e l l and a l s o f o r h e r c h i l d r e n . While they d i d have f i n a n c i a l hardships, he had never wanted h e r t o work. While l i v i n g i n ~ i l l i n g s , Ralph r e f e r r e d t o h i s f i r s t wife, Fern, a s "Aunt Fern", and h i s daughter Joan knew h e r a s Aunt Fern. A f t e r F e r n ' s death, Ralph wanted t h e family t o move i n t o h i s home on Delphinium Avenue, b u t E l s i e s a i d s h e w a s r e l u c t a n t t o move t h e r e because t h e home contained F e r n ' s f u r n i t u r e and possessions. Also, t h e house was used by t h e c h i l d r e n of h i s o t h e r marriage a s a stopover p l a c e while v i s i t i n g i n B i l l i n g s . However, Ralph, E l s i e and Joan d i d c a r e f o r t h i s second home and went t h e r e a t l e a s t once a week t o c l e a n it and c a r e f o r t h e yard. From 1952 u n t i l h i s death, Ralph and E l s i e Lester h e l d themselves o u t a s husband and wife. Various expenses which w e r e incurred during t h e course of t h i s r e l a t i o n s h i p w e r e p a i d f o r and r e c e i p t e d i n t h e name of Ralph Lester. During Ralph's f r e q u e n t buying t r i p s he s e n t money t o E l s i e and t h e c h i l d r e n by Western Union a s Ralph Lester. Friends and neighbors knew Ralph and E l s i e as husband and wife. They received Christmas c a r d s , wedding i n v i t a t i o n s , and o t h e r mail addressed t o M r . and M r s . Ralph Lester. The p u b l i c school system recognized t h e marriage of Ralph and E l s i e i n connection with t h e education of t h e i r c h i l d r e n , and t h e family medical records i n d i c a t e t h e marriage s t a t u s of Ralph and E l s i e as do t h e b i r t h c e r t i f i c a t e s of t h e two c h i l d r e n . Ralph and E l s i e L e s t e r were l i s t e d i n t h e 1975 and 1976 B i l l i n g s C i t y Directory a s husband and wife. It w a s n o t u n t i l Xalph's last i l l n e s s t h a t E l s i e m e t any of h i s c h i l d r e n of h i s marriage t o Fern. An a f f i d a v i t submitted f o r t h e c o u r t ' s consideration by a n u r s e ' s a i d s t a t e d t h a t because E l s i e had been i n such c o n s t a n t a t t e n - dance of Ralph during h i s l a s t i l l n e s s , s h e asked ~ l s i e , i n t h e presence of Ralph's c h i l d r e n by Fern, what r e l a t i o n s h i p s h e was. E l s i e i d e n t i f i e d h e r s e l f a s a " f r i e n d " and n o t a s t h e wife of Ralph. E l s i e answers t h a t she d i d n o t want t o embarrass t h e c h i l d r e n of t h e f i r s t marriage by r e v e a l i n g t h e r e l a t i o n s h i p she had had w i t h t h e i r f a t h e r . A t t h e t i m e of Ralph's death, h i s o l d e s t daughter E d i t h took charge of t h e f u n e r a l , and he was buried b e s i d e h i s f i r s t w i f e Fern. Ralph f i l e d a j o i n t income t a x under t h e name of Schan- bacher and g i v i n g h i s w i f e ' s name a s Fern u n t i l 1972. T h e r e a f t e r , he f i l e d a s a " s i n g l e man." I n 1975 Ralph made a W i l l i n which he f a i l e d t o mention t h a t he had a wife, t h e a p p e l l a n t E l s i e , and t h a t he had two c h i l d r e n by h e r . Following Ralph's d e a t h on November 11, 1976, t h i s W i l l was submitted t o probate. The W i l l was submitted by E d i t h E l l i s , one of h i s daughters, who f i l e d an a p p l i c a t i o n f o r a n informal p r o b a t e of t h e W i l l and t o be appointed personal r e p r e s e n t a t i v e t h e r e i n . On November 15, an o r d e r of i n - formal probate of t h e W i l l and t h e appointment of 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 a s signed by t h e c l e r k of t h e D i s t r i c t Court and letters w e r e i s s u e d t o E d i t h E l l i s a s p e r s o n a l r e p r e s e n t a t i v e . On February 2, 1977, t h e demand f o r bond and t h e demand f o r n o t i c e w e r e f i l e d by E l s i e as a s u r v i v i n g wife of Ralph and t h e mother of t h e two s u r v i v i n g c h i l d r e n , Margaret Joan L e s t e r and Roberta Louise Lester. On t h e following day, a p e t i t i o n f o r supervised a d m i n i s t r a t i o n and a n o t i c e of claim and p e t i t i o n by p r e t e r m i t t e d c h i l d r e n w e r e f i l e d . An amended v e r i f i e d p e t i t i o n f o r supervised a d m i n i s t r a t i o n , and t h e amended n o t i c e of claim and p e t i t i o n by p r e t e r m i t t e d c h i l d r e n w e r e served i n t h i s m a t t e r on February 10, 1977. hereafter, E l s i e f i l e d on May 4 , 1977, a p e t i t i o n f o r family allowance, p e t i t i o n f o r exempt property, p e t i t i o n f o r a homestead allowance, and a widow's e l e c t i v e s h a r e t h e r e i n . On August 18, 1977, t h e d e p o s i t i o n of E l s i e was taken i n t h i s matter. On November 3, 1977, t h e personal representa- t i v e f i l e d a memorandum and motion f o r summary judgment. Hearing on t h e motion was s e t f o r November 28, 1977, b u t t h e hearing was n o t held. The m a t t e r was f i n a l l y heard i n Se2tember 1978, a t which t i m e f i n d i n g s of f a c t and conclu- s i o n s of law w e r e made by t h e D i s t r i c t Court. On October 13, 1978, a b r i e f hearing was h e l d i n t h e chambers on p e t i - t i o n e r ' s motion t o amend t h e f i n d i n g s of f a c t and conclu- s i o n s of law, which was denied by t h e D i s t r i c t Court on October 13, 1978. W e need n o t set f o r t h t h e i s s u e s a s s t a t e d by counsel on appeal, b u t set them f o r t h below a s w e see c o n t r o l l i n g i n t h i s case. Here t h e r e a r e genuine i s s u e s of m a t e r i a l f a c t precluding summary judgment on t h e two following i s s u e s : 1. Whether t h e r e was a common law marriage between Ralph and E l s i e a f t e r t h e d e a t h of Fern? 2. Are t h e two c h i l d r e n of t h e r e l a t i o n s h i p of Ralph and E l s i e t o be considered i s s u e of t h e marriage of t h e decedent? While t h e 1952 marriage between t h e s e p a r t i e s was p r o h i b i t e d by v i r t u e of Ralph's p r e e x i s t i n g marriage t o Fern, upon her death i n September 1973, a f a c t q u e s t i o n of whether t h i s impediment t o t h e marriage was removed i s r a i s e d by our s t a t u t e . See Stevens v. Woodmen of t h e world (1937), 105 Mont. 121, 71 P.2d 898, 905. From documents submitted by E l s i e , t h e r e was evidence t h a t , a f t e r t h e d e a t h of Fern, Ralph and E l s i e l i v e d t o g e t h e r a s man and w i f e , f i r s t i n a mobile home i n t h e Lockwood a d d i t i o n , and then i n a n apartment a t 3304 Winchell Lane. They l i v e d a t t h i s r e s i d e n c e u n t i l Ralph's d e a t h on November 11, 1976. Fol- lowing F e r n ' s d e a t h , t h e c h i l d r e n of t h e second union and E l s i e and Ralph cared f o r t h e r e s i d e n c e t h a t had been pur- chased by Ralph f o r h i s wife Fern, looking a f t e r t h e lawn, etc., and maintaining t h e property u n t i l Ralph's death. From t h e record b e f o r e t h e c o u r t , t h e s e f a c t s w e r e n o t c o n t e s t e d by t h e personal r e p r e s e n t a t i v e . Therefore, a q u e s t i o n a r i s e s under s e c t i o n 48-310(2),R.C.N. 1947, now s e c t i o n 40-1-401(2) MCA, a s t o whether o r n o t E l s i e and Ralph w e r e l a w f u l l y married. I n 1975, t h e Montana L e g i s l a t u r e enacted t h e n a t i o n a l d r a f t of t h e Uniform Marriage and Divorce A c t , which became s e c t i o n s 48-301 through 48-341, R.C.M. 1947, now s e c t i o n s 40-1-101 through 40-4-220 MCA. S e c t i o n 48-302, R.C.M. 1947, now s e c t i o n s 40-1-101 and 40-4-101 MCA, set f o r t h t h e pur- pose of t h e A c t a s follows: "This a c t s h a l l be l i b e r a l l y construed and ap- p l i e d t o promote i t s underlying purposes, which a r e t o : " ( 1 ) provide adequate procedures f o r t h e solemni- z a t i o n and r e g i s t r a t i o n of marriage; " ( 2 ) s t r e n g t h e n and p r e s e r v e t h e i n t e g r i t y of marriage and safeguard family r e l a t i o n s h i p s ; " ( 3 ) promote t h e amicable s e t t l e m e n t of d i s p u t e s t h a t have a r i s e n between p a r t i e s t o a marriage; " ( 4 ) m i t i g a t e t h e p o t e n t i a l harm t o t h e spouses and t h e i r c h i l d r e n caused by t h e process of l e g a l d i s s o l u t i o n of marriage; " ( 5 ) make reasonable p r o v i s i o n f o r spouse and minor c h i l d r e n during and a f t e r l i t i g a t i o n ; and " ( 6 ) make t h e law of l e g a l d i s s o l u t i o n of marriage e f f e c t i v e f o r d e a l i n g w i t h t h e r e a l i t i t e s of ma- t r i m o n i a l experience by making i r r e t r i e v a b l e break- down of t h e marriage r e l a t i o n s h i p t h e s o l e b a s i s f o r i t s d i s s o l u t i o n . " Section 48-310 ( 2 ) , R.C.M. 1947, now s e c t i o n 40-1-401 (2) MCA, provides : " ( 2 ) P a r t i e s t o a marriage prohibited under t h i s s e c t i o n who c o h a b i t a f t e r removal of t h e impediment a r e lawfully married a s of t h e d a t e of t h e removal of t h e impediment." The above s t a t u t e s embody a progressive policy long followed by such c o u r t s a s t h e C i r c u i t Court of Appeals of t h e D i s t r i c t Columbia which held i n Matthews v. B r i t t o n (D.C. C i r . 1962), 303 F.2d 408, 409: "Nevertheless, a s long a s t h e impediment of E a r n e s t i n e ' s lawful marriage t o Johnson e x i s t e d , she and Harry Matthews could n o t lawfully be o r become husband and wife. However, it i s s e t t l e d t h a t i f p a r t i e s agree t o be husband and wife i n ignorance of an impediment t o lawful matrimony, then t h e removal of t h a t impediment r e s u l t s i n a common-law marriage between t h e p a r t i e s i f they have continued t o cohabit and l i v e together a s husband and wife . . . t h e same r e s u l t o b t a i n s even i f p a r t i e s have knowledge of t h e impediment a t t h e t i m e they agreed t o be married. I t i s n o t t o be expected t h a t p a r t i e s once having agreed t o be married w i l l deem it necessary t o agree t o do s o again when an earlier marriage i s terminated o r some o t h e r ban t o union i s eliminated." See, t h e Commission Comment t o Section 207(b), Uniform Marriage and Divorce Act, 9 U.L.A. 470. I n a d d i t i o n , had n o t s e c t i o n 48-310(2) been enacted, t h e f a c t remains t h a t E l s i e could, under t h e f a c t s i t u a t i o n presented t o t h e Court here, s t i l l have been a surviving widow of Ralph by v i r t u e of a v a l i d common law marriage a f t e r t h e death of Fern i n 1973. Montana has long recog- nized t h e v a l i d i t y of common law marriages and t h i s i s c a r r i e d forward i n t h e Uniform Marriage and Divorce Act i n s e c t i o n 48-314, R.C.M. 1947, now s e c t i o n 40-1-403 NCA. The second i s s u e of whether t h e c h i l d r e n of t h e union of t h e s e two people a r e i s s u e of t h e decedent i s a f a c t i s s u e which cannot be decided by summary judgment. When t h e Uniform Marriage and Divorce Act was adopted by our l e g i s l a - t u r e , s e v e r a l s e c t i o n s w e r e devoted t o t h e p r o t e c t i o n of t h e c h i l d r e n of a marriage. These relate t o strengthening and p r e s e r v i n g t h e i n t e g r i t y of marriage and safeguarding family r e l a t i o n s h i p s ; t o t h e promotion of s e t t l e m e n t of d i s p u t e s ; t o m i t i g a t i o n of harm t o spouses and t h e i r c h i l d r e n caused by process of l e g a l d i s s o l u t i o n of marriage; and t o reason- a b l e p r o v i s i o n s f o r a spouse and minor c h i l d r e n a f t e r liti- g a t i o n . These i t e m s should be considered i n t h e f a c t s i t u a - t i o n w e have here. The q u e s t i o n t o be decided on a motion f o r summary judgment i s whether t h e r e i s a genuine i s s u e of m a t e r i a l f a c t and n o t how t h a t i s s u e should be determined. Baylor v. Jacobson (1976), 170 Mont. 234, 552 P.2d 55; Fulton v. Clark (1975), 167 Mont. 399, 538 P.2d 1371. W e have f u r t h e r noted t h a t summary judgment i s n o t a proper t o o l f o r r e s o l v i n g d i s p u t e d i s s u e s of f a c t and i s accordingly improper whenever a m a t e r i a l f a c t u a l m a t t e r i s i n d i s p u t e . Engebretson v. Putnam (1977), Mont. , 571 P.2d 368, 34 St.Rep. 1241; Duncan v. Rockwell I'lfg. Co. (1977), Mont. I 567 P. 2d 936, 34 St.Rep. 821; Bahm v. Dormanen (1975), 168 Mont. 408, 543 P.2d 379. I n Engebretson, t h i s Court noted: "The purpose of t h e summary judgment procedure i s t o encourage j u d i c i a l economy through t h e e i l i m i n a t i o n of unnecessary t r i a l , d e l a y and expense. [ C i t a t i o n s omitted.] Summary judgment i s n o t a s u b s t i t u t e f o r t r i a l , however, and i s i n a p p r o p r i a t e when genuine i s s u e s of m a t e r i a l f a c t remain t o be l i t i g a t e d . . ." 571 P.2d a t 370. For t h e reasons above set f o r t h , t h e summary judgment of t h e D i s t r i c t Court i s reversed. The m a t t e r i s remanded f o r t r i a l on t h e m e r i t s . We concur: Ch' f Justlce t g