No. 13220 

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA 

1976 

JOSEFA LEVC (nee OIBl&) and 

IVANA OGRIN (nee 0' B1z.k , 

Plaintiffs and Respondents, 

THE HONORABLE HOLLIS G. CONNORS, 

Treasurer of the State of Montana, 

and Keith Colbo, Director, Department 

of Revenue of the State of Montana, 

Defendants and Appellants. 

Appeal from: District Court of the First Judicial District, 

Honorable Peter Meloy, District Judge presiding. 

Counsel of Record : 

For Appellants : 

Hon. Robert L. Woodahl, Attorney General, Helena, 

Montana 

Marshall Murray, argued, Kalispell, Montana 

For Respondents : 

Thomas F. Dowling argued, Helena, Montana 

Submitted: August 31, 1976 

Decided : fief 1 8 1976 

Filed : P'Tf 7 % , '! 1c';cir 
Mr. Chief Justice James T. Harrison delivered the Opinion of 

the Court. 

This is an appeal from a judgment of the district court, 

Lewis and Clark County, awarding plaintiffs funds that had 

escheated to the State of Montana. 

Plaintiffs are the nieces and heirs at law of Frank 

O'Blak who died intestate in Billings, Montana, on June 24, 

1970. 

The estate was administered by public administration, 

and after finding no known heirs, it was ordered paid to the 

state treasurer as escheated funds in the amount of $8,693.93. 

When the heirs in Yugoslavia learned of their uncle's 

death they filed this action to claim the funds. The district 

court ruled the heirs were within the exception to the twoyear statute of limitations even though the action was filed 

more than two years after the escheated funds had been received 

by the state treasurer. 

The heirs were granted judgment for the escheated funds. 

The issue before this Court is whether the exception to 

the two-year statute of limitations for citizens of the United 

States beyond the limits of the United States, applies to citizens of Yugoslavia resident in Yugoslavia. 

The statute in question, section 91-509, R.C.M. 1947, 

reads in pertinent part: 

" * * * Such action must be brought within two 

(2) years from the date on which the money or 

property is received by the state treasurer, 

saving, however, to infants and persons of 

unsound mind, or citizens of the United States 

beyond the limits of the United States, the 

right to commence their action at any time 

within the time limited or two (2) years after 

their respective disabilities cease." (Emphasis 

supplied . ) 

Plaintiffs are not citizens of the United States, but 

are citizens and residents of the Peoples Republic of Yugoslavia. 
It is admitted for this case that reciprocity of inheritance 

rights and reciprocity of transfer of funds exist between the 

United States and Yugoslavia. 

It is settled by Kolovrat v. Oregon, 366 U.S. 187, 6 

L ed 2d 218, 81 S.Ct. 922, and Estate of Spehar, 140 Mont. 76, 

367 P.2d 563, that under the reciprocity provisions of an 1881 

treaty and its "most favored nation" clause, Yugoslavian claimants 

have the same right to inherit their relatives' personal property 

as they would if they were American citizens living in Montana. 

The relevant portions of the treaties directing that result are 

set out in the footnotes to the report of Kolovrat. 

The district court held that the Yugoslavian heirs are 

entitled to the same exemption that American citizens have who 

are outside the United States until their disability ceases and 

that their disability reasonably ceased in this case upon actual 

notice of the death of their uncle. The Court also indicated that 

section 91-502, R.C.M. 1947, requires the state to hold escheated 

property in trust for 10 years within which time it may be claimed 

by filing an action. 

We hold that the statute applies to these Yugoslavian 

claimants as it would to Montana residents. There is no question 

they are entitled to inherit property on the same basis as residents. This is in accordance with Kolovrat. 

However, they are not included in the class of United 

States citizens outside the United States. We do not feel compelled 

to go beyond the holding in Kolovrat and judicially designate 

them as within that class and entitled to the exception. 

This exception was enacted in 1943. At that time large 

numbers of our citizens were called to duty outside the United 

States. Presumably this exception was enacted for their benefit 

until they could return to their homeland. 
We are referred to the general rules that limitation 

statutes making exceptions in favor of persons under disability 

must be strictly construed and that courts will not read into 

statutes of limitation an exemption or disability which has not 

been embodied therein. 

If we were to accept plaintiffs' argument that the statute did not run until they received notice of the death, we 

would be reading into the statute an additional requirement. 

Notice of the death of a deceased is not a disability or exception to the statute. 

We also point out that the statute in question here is 

a limitation statute and affects the remedy to assert the right, 

not the right itself. The right of these heirs to inherit is 

not in question and is established. 

The case is remanded to the district court with direction 

to apply the two-year statute of limitation in accordance with 

this opinion. 

A concur: 

L' 

Chief Justice 
Mr. Justice Haswell dissenting: 

I dissent. In my view these Yugoslavian claimants are 

entitled to the property of their deceased relative. 

The provisions of the treaties held to apply in Kolovrat 

v. Oregon, 366 U.S. 187, 81 S.Ct. 922, 6 L ed 2d 218, are broader 

than the specific holding required in that case. The following 

is a quote from one of the treaties held to apply in Kolovrat 

and is set out in a footnote to Kolovrat at page 223: 

"'In whatever relates to * * * acquiring and 

disposing of property of every sort and denomination, either by sale, donation, exchange, testament, or in any other manner whatsoever, * * * 

the citizens of the two contracting parties shall 

reciprocally enjoy the same privileqes, liberties, 

and riqhts, as native citizens * * *.I" (Emphasis 

added. ) 

Although the decision in this case necessarily goes beyond 

Kolovrat because we are concerned here with a statute of limitations where the right to inherit is conceded, the emphasized 

portion of the treaty dictates that these heirs have the same 

privilege as native citizens under the statute of limitations. 

The treaty requires that in whatever relates to acquiring 

and disposing of property, these heirs are the same as native 

citizens. These words do not allow a distinction between the 

right to inherit, established in Kolovrat, and the remedy to obtain that right as affected by a limitation statute. Where the 

legislature has made an exception for United States citizens, the 

treaty requires that same exception be applied to these heirs. 

Therefore, because United States citizens are entitled to claim 

within two years of actual notice of the death of their deceased 

relative in Yugoslavia, Yugoslavian citizens are entitled to claim 

within the same time period and the claim here involved is not barred. 

Accordingly I would affirm the judgment of the district 

court. 

Justice 

-5-