Case Title: LARANGO v LOVELY

Citation: 

Docket Number: 

State: montana

Court: Montana Supreme Court

Date: 1981-12-09T00:00:00Z

Document:
No. 81-123 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA 1981 LOLA MAE LARANGO, et a1 . , Plaintiffs and Appellants, -vs- KENNETH LOVELY, Defendant and Respondent. Appeal from: District Court of the Sixth Judicial District, In and for the County of Park, The Honorable Jack D. Shanstrom, Judge presiding. Counsel of Record: For Appellant: Robert J. Sewell,' Jr., Smith Law Firm, Helena, Montana For Respondent: Joseph T. Swindlehurst; Huppert & Swindlehurst, Livingston, Montana Submitted on Briefs: September 17, 1981 Decided: December 9, 1981 Filed: . . - $ 1961 Clerk M r . j u s t i c e Fred J. Weber delivered t h e Opinion of t h e Court. Appellants brought s u i t i n t h e S i x t h J u d i c i a l D i s t r i c t , Park County, Montana, a l l e g i n g t h a t t h e respondent n e g l i g e n t l y performed h i s d u t i e s a s executor of t h e e s t a t e of which t h e a p p e l l a n t s are d i s t r i b u t e e s . Upon motion of the respondent, t h e d i s t r i c t judge quashed the summons and dismissed t h e s u i t . W e reverse. Lola Mae Swandal died t e s t a t e on November 8, 1974. H e r w i l l was admitted t o probate on November 26, 1974, and Kenneth Lovely, respondent herein, was named executor of t h e e s t a t e . Various p o r t i o n s of four s e c t i o n s of land were included i n t h e e s t a t e . O i l l e a s e s involving t h e land i n these f o u r s e c t i o n s had been executed p r i o r t o t h e death of t h e t e s t a t r i x . On J u l y 15, 1975, t h e property i n one of t h e s e c t i o n s was sold by Lovely i n h i s capacity a s executor. The D i s t r i c t Court order confirming t h e s a l e s t a t e d t h a t t h e property was s o l d "with t h e tenements, hereditaments and appurtenances thereto." The property i n another of t h e s e c t i o n s was s o l d i n August, 1975. The c o u r t ' s order confirming t h a t s a l e included a l e g a l d e s c r i p t i o n of t h e property which contained t h e words "Excepting therefrom One-half of t h e e x i s t i n g o i l , gas, hydrothermal and mineral r i g h t s . " These words were inked o u t , and t h e d e l e t i o n was i n i t i a l e d by t h e judge. A statement of account f o r f i r s t and f i n a l d i s t r i b u t i o n w a s f i l e d by Lovely on August 28, 1975. The schedule of a s s e t s attached t o t h e statement of account included a r e c i t a l of o i l l e a s e s on and mineral r i g h t s reserved from t h e land i n a l l four sections. The D i s t r i c t Court issued i t s decree of s e t t l e m e n t of f i n a l account and d i s t r i b u t i o n of e s t a t e on September 23, 1975. Each of t h e d i s t r i b u t e e s received a f r a c t i o n a l i n t e r e s t i n t h e o i l and mineral r i g h t s t o t h e land i n a l l four sections. Lovely was discharged a s executor on March 2 , 1976. O n December 7, 1976, Lovely f i l e d a p e t i t i o n t o reopen t h e e s t a t e and amend t h e decree of s e t t l e m e n t of f i n a l d i s t r i b u t i o n . Lovely a l l e g e d t h a t t h e decree i n a d v e r t e n t l y d i s t r i b u t e d the mineral r i g h t s t o t h e two t r a c t s of land which had been sold. Hearing on this p e t i t i o n was had on J u l y 19, 1977. The d i s t r i b u t e e s of t h e Swandal e s t a t e r e s i s t e d t h e p e t i t i o n , b u t on J u l y 29, 1977, t h e D i s t r i c t Court f i l e d an amended decree of d i s t r i b u t i o n . The amended decree r e f l e c t e d t h e conveyance of t h e mineral r i g h t s t o t h e purchasers of t h e two t r a c t s of land. The d i s t r i b u t e e s w e r e s e n t n o t i c e of e n t r y of judgment and appealed from t h e judgment on September 1, 1977. The matter was f i n a l l y submitted t o t h i s Court on September 21, 1978. On November 27, 1978, i n Matter of E s t a t e of Swandal (1978), Mont. , 587 P.2d 368, 35 St.Rep. 1716, t h i s Court reversed t h e amendatory a c t i o n of t h e D i s t r i c t Court. W e held t h a t t h e mineral r i g h t s a t t e n d a n t t o the two t r a c t s conveyed by t h e executor were n o t p a r t of t h e e s t a t e and n o t s u s c e p t i b l e t o d i s t r i b u t i o n t o anyone. The case was remanded t o t h e ~ i s t r i c t Court f o r amendment of t h e decree by an order --- nunc pro tunc t o except t h e mineral r i g h t s previously conveyed. The d i s t r i b u t e e s had r e t a i n e d a t t o r n e y McKinley Anderson t o r e p r e s e n t them i n t h e proceedings o u t l i n e d above. ~ u r i n g t h e pendency of t h e appeal i n Matter -- of t h e E s t a t e - of Swandal, a t t o r n e y Anderson prepared a c i v i l complaint i n behalf of t h e d i s t r i b u t e e s . The p l a i n t i f f s were Mabel Louise Easton, Dorothy E l l e n Larango, Lola Mae Larango, John Emery Swandal (deceased), Dorothy Hunt (representing minor h e i r s Shari Swandal and John Swandal), and Susan Denise Swandal. Gordon Francis Swandal, although omitted from t h e caption of t h e complaint, was included i n t h e body of t h e complaint a s an h e i r of Lola Mae Swandal. Kenneth Lovely was sued a s personal r e p r e s e n t a t i v e of Lola Mae Swandal (deceased). The compl-aint a l l e g e d t h a t Lovely had been i n s t r u c t e d t h a t no o i l o r mineral r i g h t s w e r e t o be conveyed when property of t h e e s t a t e was sold, b u t , d e s p i t e t h i s i n s t r u c t i o n , Lovely negligently allowed t h e conveyance of o i l and mineral i n t e r e s t s held by t h e e s t a t e . The complaint was f i l e d on May 8, 1978, and a summons issued t h a t same day t o t h e p l a i n t i f f s ' attorney. That a t t o r n e y , McKinley Anderson, was replaced by t h e p l a i n t i f f s ' p r e s e n t counsel, Robert Sewell, i n October, 1978. O n May 1 7 , 1979, Sewell obtained s e r v i c e of t h e summons which had been issued on May 8, 1978. Before Sewell obtained s e r v i c e of t h i s summons, he a l t e r e d it i n s e v e r a l r e s p e c t s . Sewell's name w a s s u b s t i t u t e d f o r t h a t of t h e former a t t o r n e y , Anderson; John Emery Swandal (deceased) was d e l e t e d a s a p l a i n t i f f ; Dorothy E. Hunt, guardian of Shari L. Swandal and John P. Swandal, minors, was s u b s t i t u t e d f o r Dorothy Hunt, representing minor h e i r s Shari Swandal and John Swandal; Gordon Swandal was added a s a p l a i n t i f f . These changes w e r e made without leave of court. O n May 18, 1979, an amended complaint w a s f i l e d . The amended complaint showed t h e same changes i n p l a i n t i f f s and a t t o r n e y s a s t h e "amended" summons. The amended complaint added a l l e g a t i o n s t h a t Lovely had f a i l e d t o account f o r a g r a i n crop growing on one of t h e t r a c t s which had been s o l d and had paid personal r e p r e s e n t a t i v e f e e s and a t t o r n e y f e e s i n excess of t h e amount allowed by s t a t u t e . A 1 though t h e amended complaint named Kenneth Lovely, personally, a s defendant, t h i s change was n o t made on the a l t e r e d summons. The summons s t i l l l i s t e d t h e defendant a s Kenneth Lovely, a s t h e personal r e p r e s e n t a t i v e of Lola Mae Swandal (deceased). O n June 6, 1979, t h e defendant moved t o quash t h e summons because i t had been m a t e r i a l l y a l t e r e d s i n c e t h e d a t e of issuance. Hearing on t h e motion was had on June 29, 1979, b u t t h e D i s t r i c t Court d i d n o t i s s u e i t s order quashing t h e summons a s issued and a l t e r e d u n t i l December 11, 1979. Attorney Sewell has h i s o f f i c e i n Lewis and Clark County, and a copy of t h e order quashing summons was n o t deposited i n t h e mail t o be delivered t o him u n t i l February 29, 1980. The copy was delivered t o Sewell on March 3, 1980. Back on December 11, 1979, Sewell had f i l e d a motion t o amend t h e summons. O n March 6 , 1980, Sewell mailed a motion t o reconsider t h e order quashing summons t o the c l e r k of c o u r t ; t h i s motion was f i l e d by t h e c l e r k on March 20, 1980. O n June 23, 1980, an amended complaint was served upon Lovely, together with a new summons on t h a t complaint. Lovely responded on J u l y 7, 1980, with a motion t o dismiss t h e complaint on t h e ground t h a t the summons was not i s s u e d within one year of May 8, 1978, t h e d a t e upon which t h e o r i g i n a l complaint was f i l e d . On J u l y 15, Sewell again moved t h e c o u r t t o reconsider i t s order quashing summons o r t o allow amendment. J u l y 15 was a l s o t h e d a t e f o r t h e hearing on Lovely's motion t o dismiss. O n January 27, 1981, t h e D i s t r i c t Court issued i t s order granting Lovely's motion t o dismiss. The p l a i n t i f f s appealed. Appellants have r a i s e d t h r e e i s s u e s i n t h i s appeal. However, a f t e r review of a l l t h r e e i s s u e s , we f i n d t h a t t h e case can be resolved by addressing t h e c e n t r a l question: Did t h e D i s t r i c t Court abuse i t s d i s c r e t i o n by refusing t o allow amendment of t h e summons? The respondent i s c o r r e c t i n a s s e r t i n g t h a t t h e power t o i s s u e a summons lies exclusively with t h e c l e r k of court. Rule 4 C ( 1 ) , M.R.Civ.P.; Kramer v. S c i e n t i f i c Control Corp. (D.C. Pa. 1973), 365 F.Supp. 780; 2 Moore's Federal P r a c t i c e 114.04 (2d ed. 1981). An a t t o r n e y has no power i n t h e matter. The a t t o r n e y can only r e q u e s t t h a t the summons be issued t o him o r her, Rule 4 C ( 1 ) , M.R.Civ.P., o r move t h e c o u r t t o have t h e summons amended. Rule 4D(7), M.R.Civ.P. The a t t o r n e y i n t h i s matter was without a u t h o r i t y t o a l t e r t h e summons without leave of court. Nevertheless, once leave was requested, t h e D i s t r i c t Court should have allowed amendment. The Montana Rules of C i v i l Procedure a r e t o be construed t o secure t h e j u s t , speedy and inexpensive determination of c a s e s , Rule 1, M.R.Civ.P., and t o f a c i l i t a t e t h e d e c i s i o n of cases on t h e i r m e r i t s . Rambur v. Diehl Lumber Company (1964), 1 4 4 Mont. 84, 394 P.2d 745. This Court has s t a t e d t h a t ". . . it i s t o be considered a s e r i o u s matter when a p a r t y moves t o have a c a s e disposed of on grounds o t h e r than t h e merits." Rambur, 1 4 4 Mont. a t 90, 394 P.2d a t 749. When t h e D i s t r i c t Court quashed t h e May 8, 1978 summons on t h e ground t h a t it had been a l t e r e d without leave of c o u r t , f a i l e d t o r u l e upon t h e motion t o reconsider i t s quashing of t h e summons, and f a i l e d t o r u l e upon t h e motion t o allow amendment of the summons, Rule 4 1 (e) , Ir4.R.Civ.P. w a s brought i n t o play. That r u l e p r o h i b i t s the f u r t h e r prosecution of an a c t i o n i f a summons has n o t been issued within one year of commencement of t h e a c t i o n . Lovely invoked Rule 4 1 ( e ) i n h i s motion t o dismiss. The passage of time precluded t h e e f f e c t i v e issuance of a new summons, and t h e case was d i s - missed. So, a f t e r four years of l i t i g a t i o n and two reviews by t h i s Court, t h e m e r i t s of t h i s controversy a r e y e t t o be considered. The D i s t r i c t Court has t h e power " [a] t any time, i n i t s d i s c r e t i o n , and upon such n o t i c e and terms as it deems j u s t , . . . [ t o ] allow any process o r proof of s e r v i c e thereof t o be amended unless it c l e a r l y appears t h a t m a t e r i a l prejudice would r e s u l t t o t h e s u b s t a n t i a l r i g h t s of t h e p a r t y a g a i n s t whom t h e process issued." Rule 4D(7), M.R.Civ.P. The record lacks any i n d i c a t i o n t h a t m a t e r i a l prejudice t o t h e s u b s t a n t i a l r i g h t s of Kenneth Lovely would have r e s u l t e d from allowing a Rule 4D(7) amendment of t h e summons. One of the functions of a summons i s t o give notice. Amendment of t h e May 8, 1978, summons t o r e f l e c t t h e minor changes contained i n t h e amended complaint of May 18, 1979, would have given Lovely a somewhat more accurate p i c t u r e of the a c t i o n brought a g a i n s t him. Amendment would have aided Lovely; it would n o t have prejudiced him. The D i s t r i c t Court abused i t s d i s c r e t i o n by n o t allowing amendment. The order of dismissal i s reversed. The cause i s remanded f o r amendment of t h e summons and amendment of proof of service. Issuance and s e r v i c e of t h e summons s h a l l r e l a t e back t o the o r i g i n a l d a t e s of issuance and s e r v i c e , t o i n s u r e t h a t t h i s case i s n o t dismissed f o r f a i l u r e t o comply with t h e t i m e requirements of Rule 4 1 ( e ) , M.R.Civ.P. Reversed and remanded. We Concur: ChAef Justice \