Case Title: ESTATE OF FENDER v MCKEON HERDEG

Citation: 

Docket Number: 

State: montana

Court: Montana Supreme Court

Date: 1975-10-17T00:00:00Z

Document:
No. 13088 I N THE S U P R E M E C O U R T O F THE STATE O F M O N T A N A 1975 STATE O F M O N T A N A ex r e 1 LOUIS HERDEGEN, Relator, DISTRICT C O U R T O F THE SEVENTEENTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT O F THE STATE O F M O N T A N A , I N AND F O R T H E C O U N T Y O F PHILLIPS AND T H E H O N O R A B L E T H O M A S DIGNAN, PRESIDING JUDGE THEREOF, Respondents. ORIGINAL PROCEEDING: Counsel of Record : For Relator : Burns, Solem & Mackenzie, Chinook, Montana William M. Solem argued and Stuart C. Mackenzie appeared, Chinook, Montana For Respondents: Granat and Cole, Malta, Montana Stephen Granat argued, Malta, Montana Submitted: September 24, 1975 Decided : ~ C T I 7 .- * -q ( 2 7 I , , , Filed : . kt No. 13087 I N T H E S U P R E M E COURT O F THE STATE O F M O N T A N A 1975 I n the Matter of t h e Estate of A R T H U R N. F E N D E R LOUIS HERDEGEN, Appellant, WILLIS McKEON, Executor, Respondent. Appeal from: D i s t r i c t Court of the Seventeenth J u d i c i a l D i s t r i c t , Honorable Thomas Dignan, Judge presiding. Counsel of Record : For Appellant : Burns, Solem and Mackenzie, Chinook, Montana William Solem argued, and Stuart C. Mackenzie appeared, Chinook, Montana For Respondent: Granat and Cole, Malta, Montana Stephen Granat argued, Malta, Montana Submitted: September 24, 1975 ~ e c i d e d : QCP 1-7 i g d ~ P Filed: i f d : L PER CURIAM: W e a r e here considering two cases, both concerning ehe probate of the e s t a t e of Arthur N. Fender, deceased. No. 13087 i s e n t i t l e d "Louis Herdegen, Appellant v. Willis EJIcI<eon, Executor, ~espondent" which i s an appeal from the d i s t r i c t court of P h i l l i p s County. No. 13088 i s e n t i t l e d "State of Montana ex r e l . Louis Herdegen, Relator, vs. D i s t r i c t Court of the Seventeenth Judicial D i s t r i c t of the State of Montana, In and For the County of P h i l l i p s and the Honorable Thomas Dignan, Presiding Judge Thereof, Respondent", an o r i g i n a l proceeding i n mandamus concerning the probate of the w i l l t o require the d i s t r i c t judge t o honor an a f f i d a v i t of disqualification and c a l l i n another judge and t o stay the proceedings in d i s t r i c t court cause No. 2790, P h i l l i p s County, pending i n that court. This Court i n Cause No. 13088 on July 18, 1975, issued t h i s ord.er: 11 Counsel was heard ex parte and thereafter an order was issued f o r an adversary hearing. A t the hearing Executor McKeon appeared by b r i e f and h i s counsel argued. Such hearing has been had, b r i e f s f i l e d by respective counsel who a l s o argued, the d i s t r i c t judge has f i l e d a memorandum, the d i s t r i c t court f i l e s examined, and the matter taken under advisement. I f There a r e two e s t a t e proceedings e n t i t l e d a l i k e , one being cause 2789, the other 2790; we apply t h i s order t o both cases. 11 Having now considered the matters involved it appears t h a t no purpose would be served by a r e c i t a t i o n of the f a c t s , the matter is on appeal and f o r now it i s necessary t o preserve the s t a t u s quo as b e s t t h a t can be done and expedite the appeal proceedings so a f i n a l decision can be had. To t h i s end the Court ORDERS: "I. The Court declines t o issue a w r i t of mandate. I1 2. The a f f i d a v i t s of disqualification a r e ordered stricken. (Relator f i l e d a notice of appeal and there- a f t e r f i l e d t h e a f f i d a v i t s of disqualification. Without extended discussion here t h i s practice cannot be approved.) "3. Both cases heretofore referred t o a r e con- solidated on appeal f o r briefing and argument. "4. Willis M. IYlcI<eon, a s executor, i s named and made a respondent i n t h i s proceeding. "5. The d i s t r i c t court i s directed t o enter an order suspending the executor's powers u n t i l the further order of the court. "6. The d i s t r i c t court, under the emergency power given i n section 91A-3-614, R.C.M. 1947, s h a l l appoint a special administrator whose powers s h a l l be limited t o conservation of the e s t a t e u n t i l f i n a l disposition of the appeal. "7. Since W i l l i s M. FfcKeon was named executor i n the w i l l admitted t o probate but now under appeal, i n accord with t h e i n t e n t of section 91A-3-615, R.C.M. 1947, t h e d i s t r i c t court i s directed t o name him special administrator with limited powers. "8. To expedite the appeal, since t r a n s c r i p t s of the evidence presented a t the hearing on admission of the alleged w i l l s a r e available the time f o r briefing i s shortened a s follows: a ) Appellant's b r i e f t o be served and f i l e d within 20 days from date of t h i s order. b) ~ e s p o n d e n t ' s b r i e f t o be served and f i l e d within 20 days from service of appellant's b r i e f . c ) Appellant's reply b r i e f t o then be served and f i l e d within 7 days. d) The cause w i l l be s e t f o r argument on the September Calendar of t h i s Court. " The matter involved here i s a determination of whether the f i r s t w i l l of Arthur N. Fender, executed on October 12, 1972 and naming Willis McKeon as executor, o r the second w i l l executed March 18, 1975, naming Louis Herdegen a s executor, be admitted t o probate. The record reveals these f a c t s : O n March 25, 1975, Arthur N. Fender died a t the ranch of h i s nephew Louis Herdegen. Herdegen i s the only h e i r l i v i n g i n Montana and had helped loolc a f t e r h i s uncle during h i s l a s t i l l n e s s . O n March 27, 1975, Herdegen f i l e d a p e t i t i o n f o r the probate of a w i l l executed by h i s uncle on March 18, 1975, requesting t h a t he be named executor. This w i l l was f i l e d i n the d i s t r i c t court of the seventeenth j u d i c i a l d i s t r i c t , P h i l l i p s County and given cause No. 2759. O n t h e following day, March 28, 1975, W i l l i s McKeon, an a t t o r n e y i n Malta, f i l e d i n t h e same court a p e t i t i o n f o r probate of w i l l of A. N. Fender, executed on October 12, 1972, and requesting t h a t he be appointed executor. That p e t i t i o n w a s given cause No. 2790. The two w i l l s were i d e n t i c a l a s t o t h e d i s p o s i t i v e provisions, t h e only difference being t h e executor named. Louis Herdegen f i l e d objections t o t h e probate of t h e w i l l offered by F J i l l i s McKeon on t h e grounds t h a t it was n o t t h e decedent's l a s t w i l l , decedent having executed a w i l l subsequent t o t h e one offered by I4cKeon. McKeon f i l e d objections t o t h e probate of t h e w i l l offered by Herdegen on the grounds t h a t de- cedent acted under duress, menace, fraud o r undue influence a t t h e time of t h e execution of t h e w i l l and f u r t h e r upon the grounds t h a t the instrument w a s not duly o r properly executed and a t t e s t e d a s required by t h e laws of Montana. Thereafter Herdegen f i l e d a motion t o dismiss the pur- w a s ported contest of t h e w i l l which heloffering f o r probate on t h e 11 grounds t h a t McKeon was n o t a person i n t e r e s t e d " within the meaning of section 91-810, R.C.M. 1947, and t h e r e f o r e lacked standing t o contest such w i l l . The d i s t r i c t court never ruled on t h i s motion, but proceeded t o s e t both p e t i t i o n s f o r a hearing on May 12, 1975. Testimony was taken and b r i e f s were f i l e d . IslcKeon was allowed t o a t t a c k t h e v a l i d i t y of t h e w i l l offered by Herdegen. A t t h e hearing testimony was taken from f i v e witnesses, including McKeon, which was reduced t o w r i t i n g and made p a r t of t h e court record. O n June 19, 1975, t h e d i s t r i c t court judge issued an order denying the probate of t h e Last W i l l and Testament of Arthur N. Fender, offered by Herdegen and admitted the w i l l offered by McKeon, dated October 12, 1972. The t r i a l c o u r t , a f t e r Herdegen appealed t o t h i s Court f i l e d a memorandum d i r e c t e d t o t h i s Court f o r consideration i n deciding t h e cause. The memorandum does n o t amount t o findings and w i l l not be considered. - 4 - Notices of appeal were f i l e d June 23, 1975 of the order denying probate of the w i l l offered by Herdegen, and the order admit- t i n g the w i l l of October 12, 1972, t o probate and appointment of Willis McKeon as executor. Several issues were s e t f o r t h and argued but we f i n d the controlling i s s u e t o be the f a i l u r e of the d i s t r i c t court t o r u l e on the Ilerdegen motion t o dismiss on the basis of the f a c t W i l l i s NcKeon had no standing t o appear and contest the w i l l offered by Herdegen. This issue was decided by t h i s Court i n H i l l v. D i s t r i c t Court, 126 Mont. 1, 4 , 5 , 242 P.2d 850. In H i l l a w i l l was executed naming H i l l the executor. A second c o d i c i l named him executor, but under a t h i r d c o d i c i l t o the w i l l he was removed a s executor and one J. W. Rees was named sole executor. H i l l objected t o and opposed ~ e e s ' p e t i t i o n f o r probate of the w i l l and the t h i r d c o d i c i l , claiming t h a t the t e s t a t r i x wa,s incompetent when she made the t h i r d c o d i c i l naming Rees executor. Rees demurred t o H i l l ' s objections and the demurrer was sustained f o r the reason t h a t H i l l was not a "person interested" i n the e s t a t e having legal capacity t o contest or oppose the probate. H i l l appealed. This Court i n - H i l l c i t e d with approval 57 Am.Jur., Wills, ! j 798, pp. 541, 542: l' Under s t a t u t e s which permit the contest of w i l l s by persons interested or claiming t o be interested i n the decedent's e s t a t e , the general r u l e i s t h a t a contestant must have some pecuniary or beneficial i n t e r e s t i n the e s t a t e of t h e decedent t h a t i s detrimentally affected by the w i l l . Although the r i g h t t o maintain a w i l l contest does not depend upon the extent or proportion of the contestant's share i n the decedent's e s t a t e , o r the amount of the detriment suffered by the contestant, i t does depend upon the f a c t t h a t the contestant may be deprived by t h e w i l l of some i n t e r e s t of pecuniary value, worth, advantage, o r use i n the e s t a t e . The mere circum- stance t h a t a person may be interested i n the administra- t i o n , d i s t r i b u t i o n , or p a r t i t i o n of an e s t a t e i s not s u f f i c i e n t i f he w i l l not suffer any detriment from t h e w i l l . As s t a t e d , an i n t e r e s t i n the property of the e s t a t e detrimentally affected by the w i l l i s t h e founda- tion of the r i g h t t o contest it." Further i n H i l l , the Court c i t e d In Re ~ ' ~ r i e n ' s Estate, 1 1 1 Sometimes it happens t h a t a l a t e r w i l l makes no change a t a l l i n the disposition of the t e s t a t o r ' s e s t a t e , but merely nominates a d i f f e r e n t executor. I n such a case, why should the e s t a t e be burdened by w i l l contest proceedings for the sole purpose of determining which of the two r i v a l claimants should be permitted t o a c t a s executor? "'1t i s our conclusion - . t h a t - ; k 9 ; " - the weight of authority ..... and the b e t t e r reasoning . . . favor . , the r u l e t h a t a contest cannot T - .. be i n i t i a t e d by an e x e c u ~ o r named i n a (Emphasis supplied). p r i o r w i l l . "' In conclusion the Court i n - 7 H i l l stated: I I Since i f there were no w i l l , H i l l would not succeed i n some degree t o the decedent's e s t a t e , he i s not a person who may appear and contest the w i l l . "The lower court, therefore, properly sustained ~ e e s ' s demurrer. I I The issue was raised again i n Estate of Maricich, 140 Mont. 319, 321, 371 P.2d 354. The Court s t a t e d : I 1 The appellant i n i t i a l l y raised two questions: (1) Can a named executor i n a prior w i l l maintain a w i l l contest of a subsequently executed w i l l ? As t o t h i s point he concedes t h a t t h i s question has previously been before t h i s court and decided ad- versely t o h i s position i n State ex r e l . H i l l v. D i s t r i c t Court, 126 Mont. 1, 242 P. 2d 850, 31 A.L.R.2d 749, and the matter i s now s t a r e d e c i s i s 9 : : ; + c * t r See a l s o Estate of French, 137 Mont. 228, 351 P.2d 548. It i s c l e a r t h a t 1.fcICeon had no standing t o appear and contest the Herdegen w i l l and Herdegen's motion t o dismiss should have been granted. I.ZcKeon, i n h i s b r i e f , argues t h a t he did not appear and contest the w i l l offered by Herdegen but merely offered the e a r l i e r w i l l f o r the c o u r t ' s consideration. W e find no merit t o t h i s argument. The record c l e a r l y indicates: 1) There was a contest of t h e Herdegen w i l l f i l e d pursuant t o section 91-901, R.C.M. 1947, i n which a t r i a l jury was demanded. 2) Questiors of f a c t were r a i s e d regarding t h e a t t e s t a - t i o n of t h e Herdegen w i l l by t h e contest. 3) A properly f i l e d motion t o dismiss, together with supporting memorandums was f i l e d , and not acted on. 4 ) McKeon was allowed t o p a r t i c i p a t e i n t h e proceedings. Regardless of what t h e May 12, 1975 hearing was c a l l e d , it was i n r e a l i t y a w i l l c o n t e s t without proper procedures being followed. Herdegen w a s denied the r i g h t t o have t h e i s s u e s r a i s e d by i4cKeon t r i e d before a jury. The order of the d i s t r i c t court admitting t o probate t h e Last W i l l and Testament of Arthur N. Fender, dated October 12, 1972, and appointing W i l l i s 14. TMcKeon, executor, is set a s i d e and vacated, together with t h e memorandum of t h e d i s t r i c t court covering reasons f o r n o t admitting t h e second w i l l . It i s ordered t h a t t h e Last W i l l and Testament of Arthur 1 i S . Fender, dated ?.larch 18, 1975, appointing Lrxlis Herdegen, executor, be admitted t o probate. It i s f u r t h e r ordered t h a t t h e d i s t r i c t court w i l l hold a hearing t o determine proper and reasonable charges f o r c o s t s and fees. M r . Chief J u s t i c e James T. Harrison took no p a r t i n t h i s opinion.