DA 10 - 0625 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA

2011 MT 186N IN THE MATTER OF THE ESTATE OF DARLENE J. WILCOCK, deceased, ERNEST WILCOCK, Petitioner and Appellant, v. BRANDI WILCOCK and HOLLY BLOUCH f/k/a HOLLY WILCOCK and RANDY JONES, Respondents and Appellees. APPEAL FROM: District Court of the Eleventh Judicial District,

In and For the County of Flathead, Cause No s . DP - 04 - 008(A) and DV - 08 - 26 Honorable Ted O. Lympus, Presiding Judge COUNSEL OF RECORD:

For Appellant: Ernest Wilcock

(Self - Represented) , Shelby, M ontana For Appellee Estate of Darlene J. Wilcock : Shelly F. Brander, Kaufman, Vidal, Hileman, P.C., Kalispell, M ontana For Appellees Brandi Wilcock and Holly Blough: Paul D. Sullivan, Measure Law Office, P.C., Kalispell, Montana For Appellee Randy Jones: Matthew B. Thiel, Saul H. Seyler, Thiel Law Office, PLLC, Missoula, Montana Submitted on Briefs: July 13, 2011 Decided: August 2, 2011 August 2 20112

Filed:

__________________________________________ Clerk3

Justice Patricia O. Cotter delivered the Opinion of the Court. ¶1 Pursuant to Section I, Paragraph 3(d), Montana Supreme Court Internal Operating Rules, this case is decided by me morandum opinion and shall notbe cited and does not serveas precedent. Its case title, cause number, and disposition shall be included in this Court’s quarterly list of noncitable cases published in the Pacific Reporter and Montana Reports . ¶2 This matter arises out of the handling of the estate of Darlene J. Wilcock (Estate), daughter of Appellant Ernest Wilcock (Ernest). D arlene was murdered on April 17, 2003, and no one has been criminally charged in connection with her death. Darlene was survived by her sisters Holly Blouch (Holly) and Brandi Wilcock (Brandi), her mother Marla Friske (Marla), and her father, Ernest. S he was, at some point, romantically involved with Randy Jones (Randy). D arlened ied intestateand Marla was named the p ersonal representative of the Estate . The onl y significant assets Darlene possessedat the time of her deathweretwo insurance policies , e ach worth $250,000. The primary beneficiar y of these policies wasRandy . Holly was the alternatebeneficiary of the State Farm Life Insurance Company policy and Brandi was the alternate beneficiar y o f the Farmers New World Life Insurance Company policy. E rnest was not a named beneficiary of either life insurance policy. ¶3 After Darlene’s death, Holly and Brandi brought numerous actions against Randy seeking a sh are of the insurance proceeds, which we related in detail in In re the Estate of Darlene J. Wilcock, 2007 MT 313N, (Estate of Wi lcock I ) . M arla, as personal4

representative of the Estate, also brought a wrongful death and survivorship claim against Randy. Ernest was not a party to any of these actions; however, as an interested party, he was provided notice of the court proceedings. After years of litigation, Holly, Brandi, the Estate, and Randy reached a global settlement agreement dividing the policies’ proceeds that was approved by the Eleventh Judicial District Court, Flathead County, o rder dated October 26, 2010, entitled Order Approving Petition for Approval of Compromise and Release of Funds Held by the Court ( Order). It is this Order Ernest challenges. ¶4 At the outset, Ernest argues he was prejudiced by his late receipt of the Order; however this arg

ument is moot because we granted Ernest’s request to file the out - of - time appeal that is currently before us. Therefore, Ernest’s only substantive challenge to the Order is that as an interested party and heir to the Estate, he was entitled to receive so me portion of proceeds from the two life insurance policies because they should have been deemed part of the proceeds of the Estate. ¶5 We review a distric t court’s conclusions of law for correctness. Hart v. Hart, 2011 MT 102, ¶ 10, 360 Mont. 308, ___ P.3d ___. A s a matter of law, Ernest has no legal interest in the life insurance proceeds because it is undisputed that he is not a named beneficiary

of either policy, and life insurance policies are non - probate assets. See Estate of Wi lcock I

; § 7 2 - 6 - 111(1), M CA, and the official comments to § 72 - 6 - 111, MCA. Therefore, we conclude that the District Court did not err in issuing the Order approving the settl ement and distribution agreement that did not apportion any of the life insurance policies’ proceeds to Ernest.5

¶6 We hav

e determined to decide this case pursuant to Section I, Paragraph 3(d) of our Internal Operating Rules, which provides for noncitable memorandum opinions . The issues in this case are legal and are controlled by settled Montana law, which the District Court correctly interpreted. ¶7 Affirmed. /S/ PATRICIA COTTER

We concur: /S/ MIKE McGRATH /S/ JAMES C. NELSON /S/ BETH BAKER /S/ JIM RICE