Title: IN THE MATTER OF THE ESTATE OF: PETERS, DECEASED

State: wyoming

Issuer: Wyoming Supreme Court

Document:

IN THE MATTER OF THE ESTATE OF: PETERS, DECEASED2001 WY 7129 P.3d 90Case Number: 00-207Decided: 08/13/2001

APRIL TERM, A.D. 2001

 

                                                                                                            

 

IN THE 
MATTER OF THE ESTATE

OF:  MONTY W. PETERS, 
Deceased:

 

PETER 
JOHN PETERS,

Appellant(Deceased's 
Father),

v.

 DENISE 
L. PETERS, a/k/a DENISE L.

JOHNSTON 
and JEFF ANTHONY,

co-administrators 
of estate,

Appellees(Administrators).

 

Appeal 
from the District Court of Albany County

 

Representing 
Appellant:

            
Peter John Peters, Pro Se, Laramie, WY.

 Representing 
Appellee:

Stephen 
N. Goodrich and Philip A. Nicholas of Anthony, Nicholas, Goodrich & 
Tangeman, LLC, Laramie, WY.

 

Before 
LEHMAN, C.J., and GOLDEN, HILL, and KITE, JJ.

  
            
HILL, Justice.

 [¶1]      Appellant, Peter 
John Peters (Peters), who appears in this Court pro se, seeks review of 
an order of the probate court that denied his efforts to insinuate himself into 
the administration of the estate of his deceased son, Monty W. Peters.  Peters' daughter-in-law, Appellee Denise 
L. Johnston Peters (Johnston), was appointed as the administrator of her 
husband's estate, and Peters challenged the legality of the marriage of his son 
to Johnston and her right to administer his son's estate.  Peters' challenges were posed largely in 
the context of his personal views of ecclesiastical law, rather than in terms of 
Wyoming's law governing intestate succession and administration of 
estates.

 

[¶2]      We will affirm 
the probate court's disposition of this matter on the basis that Peters lacked 
standing, both in the district court and in this Court, to litigate any of the 
issues which he sought to raise.

 

ISSUES

 

[¶3]      Peters proposes 
these issues for our review:

 

I.          
Did the court err in finding Denise Johnston to be the lawful common law 
wife and heir of the decedent under the laws of the State of Colorado when the 
parties had no significant contacts with, and were not ever residents of or 
domiciled in Colorado?

 

II.          
Did the court err in finding Denise Johnston to be the lawful common law 
wife and heir of the decedent under the laws of the State of Colorado when the 
evidence of the circumstances of the parties relations did not support, and in 
fact precluded, a finding of a common law union?

 

III.         
Did the court err in finding Denise Johnston to be the lawful common law 
wife and heir of the decedent under the laws of the State of Colorado when 
recognition of such common law union runs counter to the strong public policy of 
the State of Wyoming?

 

In 
response, Johnston poses this statement of the issues:

 

1.  The probate court correctly held that, 
regardless whether Monty W. Peters and Denise L. (Johnston) Peters were lawfully 
married, Intervenor-Appellant Peter J. Peters has no interest in the estate of 
Monty W. Peters, and consequently has no standing to intervene in the probate 
matter.

 

2.  The probate court correctly found that 
Denise L. (Johnston) Peters was the lawful and legal wife of decedent Monty W. 
Peters, and is entitled to administer his estate.

 

3.  Because Appellant lacked standing to 
intervene in the probate matter below, he lacks standing to pursue an appeal 
before this Court.

 

FACTS

 

[¶4]      The facts we 
present here are not in dispute.  
Johnston and Monty W. Peters were married in a Christian ceremony at 
Estes Park, Colorado, on May 29, 1993.  
The parties to that marriage never obtained a marriage license, the 
reason being that such an action would have been contrary to the Peters family's 
religious beliefs.  Peters conceded 
that there was a marriage in the eyes of God but not in the eyes of the states 
of Colorado or Wyoming.  Peters 
contended that as patriarch of his family, and in accordance with his religious 
beliefs, he was the only person entitled to administer his son's 
estate.

 

[¶5]      Johnston and 
Monty W. Peters were the parents of three children who were born of the 
marriage.  At the time this probate 
matter was filed, the children were aged five years, four years, and one 
year.  Johnston and Monty W. Peters 
lived together until at least July of 1999.  Johnston contends, and Peters does not 
dispute this, that she and her husband were still married (at least in the eyes 
of God) at the time Monty W. Peters was killed in an automobile accident on 
January 1, 2000.  Monty W. Peters 
did not have a will, and, hence, his property was required to be distributed in 
accordance with the laws governing intestate succession.

 

[¶6]      On January 12, 
2000, the probate court issued letters of administration to Johnston upon her 
petition for such letters and appointed her as personal representative.  Wyo. Stat. Ann. §§ 2-3-101104, 2-4-205, 
and 2-4-208 (LexisNexis 2001).  The 
matter was proceeding in the usual course of events when, on April 17, 2000, 
Peters filed two sets of papers:  
(1)  Offer of Proof § 
1-12-301,1 Demand for Proof of Jurisdiction; 
Motion for Summary Judgment; Objection to Presumption of Jurisdiction; Article 
3. Judicial Notice of Foreign Law and Supporting affidavit(s); and (2) Demand or 
Caveat to revoke Probate-Fraudulent Representations; Demand to Dismiss.  On May 9, 2000, Peters filed papers 
entitled, Motion for Judicial Notice and to Remove Personal Representatives2 and Supporting Affidavit.  It is difficult to precisely categorize 
these pleadings in terms of rules of civil procedure or statutes governing the 
administration of estates, but they most closely resemble a contest of a 
petition for letters of administration.  
Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 2-4-206 (LexisNexis 2001).

 

DISCUSSION

 

[¶7]      The probate court 
determined that the papers filed by Peters, and the responses made by Johnston, 
were converted to a summary judgment proceeding.  W.R.C.P 12(c).  Of course, the probate court 
appropriately recognized that it had jurisdiction over the subject matter and 
the parties and that it was required to adhere to the laws of the state of 
Wyoming.  The probate court also 
concluded that Johnston was the legal wife of Monty W. Peters and that she was 
entitled to administer her deceased husband's estate.  However, we conclude that it is 
unnecessary for us to address that issue in order to resolve this case and that 
it likewise was unnecessary for the probate court to have addressed that 
issue.

 

[¶8]      The probate court 
went on to conclude that because Monty W. Peters died intestate, descent and 
distribution of his estate was to be determined by the provisions of Wyo. Stat. 
Ann. § 2-4-101 (LexisNexis 2001):

 

            
(a)  Whenever any person having title to any real or personal 
property having the nature or legal character of real estate or personal estate 
undisposed of, and not otherwise limited by marriage settlement, dies intestate, 
the estate shall descend and be distributed in parcenary to his kindred, male 
and female, subject to the payment of his debts, in the following course and 
manner:

                        
(i)  If the intestate leaves husband or wife and children, or 
the descendants of any children surviving, one-half (1/2) of the estate shall 
descend to the surviving husband or wife, and the residue thereof to the 
surviving children and descendants of children, as hereinafter 
limited;

. . . 
.

            
(c)  Except in cases above enumerated, the estate of any 
intestate shall descend and be distributed as follows:

                        
(i)  To his children surviving, and the descendants of his 
children who are dead, the descendants collectively taking the share which their 
parents would have taken if living;

                        
(ii)  if there are no children, nor their descendants, then to 
his father, mother, brothers and sisters, and to the descendants of brothers and 
sisters who are dead, the descendants collectively taking the share which their 
parents would have taken if living, in equal parts[.]

 

[¶9]      The probate court 
also found that the intestate deceased arguably had a wife and most certainly 
had three children.  Wyo. Stat. Ann. 
§ 2-4-201 provides that:  "The 
relatives of the deceased are entitled to administer only when they are entitled 
to succeed to his personal estate or some portion thereof."  Peters was not entitled to succeed to 
his son's personal estate and, therefore, was not a person entitled to 
administer his son's estate.  Wyo. 
Stat. Ann. § 2-4-206 provides:  "Any 
person interested may contest the petition by filing written opposition on the 
ground of the incompetency of the applicant, or may assert his own rights to the 
administration and pray that letters be issued to himself."  In order to be an "interested person," 
Peters must stand to inherit or succeed to property of the estate or some 
portion of it.  See In Re 
Coolidge's Estate, 47 Wyo. 488, 41 P.2d 503, 505-6 
(1935).

 

[¶10]   With respect to standing we have 
held:

 

Standing 
is a concept used to determine whether a party is sufficiently affected to 
insure that a justiciable controversy is presented to the court. 
. . . It is a necessary and useful tool to be used by courts in 
ferreting out those cases which ask the courts to render advisory opinions or 
decide an artificial or academic controversy without there being a palpable 
injury to be remedied.  However, it 
is not a rigid or dogmatic rule but one that must be applied with some view to 
realities as well as practicalities.  
Standing should not be construed narrowly or 
restrictively.

 

Washakie 
County School District No. One v. Herschler, 606 P.2d 310, 317 (Wyo. 1980).

 

[¶11]   Under the circumstances presented 
by this case, we concur with the conclusion of the probate court with respect to 
standing and hold that Peters has no standing to contest the validity of the 
marriage between Johnston and his son in the context of this probate proceeding, 
as well as no standing to contest the issuance of letters of administration to 
her or her appointment as personal representative of the estate of Monty W. 
Peters.

 

[¶12]   Because Peters lacks standing to 
contest the actions of the probate court, he has no standing to sustain an 
appeal in this Court, and the order of the probate court is 
affirmed.

 

FOOTNOTES

 

  1Wyo. Stat. Ann. 
§ 1-12-301 (LexisNexis 2001) is entitled, "Proof of laws of foreign 
jurisdiction."  The "foreign" law 
discussed in the filing related to ecclesiastical law ("law of the 
Bible").

 

2   Because Johnston moved to 
Pennsylvania, a co-administrator was also appointed.  Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 2-4-201(c) (LexisNexis 
2001).