# ORIGINAL

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA DA 22-0276

IN THE MATTER OF THE ESTATE OF COLLEEN JOHNSON COOK a/k/a COLLEEN PHILLIPS, Deceased. 

# Lg'iLED JUN 2 1 2022
Bowen Greenwood Clerk of Suprerne Court State of IVIontana ORDER

Appellee Pershing Phillips, the named Personal Representative of the Estate of Colleen Johnson Cook a/k/a Colleen Phillips, has moved to dismiss part ofthis appeal on grounds of untimeliness. Appellant Melanie J. Cook has responded in opposition to Phillips's motion to dismiss. On May 25, 2022, Cook filed her Notice of Appeal in this Court in which she specified that she was appealing from two orders: Order Admitting 2021 Will to Probate, entered by the District Court on March 25, 2022; and Order Denying Motion for Relief, entered on May 23, 2022. Phillips concedes that the appeal was timely filed as to the May 23, 2022 Order DenyingMotion for Reliefandthis issueisproperlybeforethe Court. However,he asserts that the appeal ofthe March 25, 2022 Order Admitting 2021 Will to Probate should be dismissed asuntimely as itwas filedmorethan 30 days from the date ofentry ofthat order. Phillips relies on M. R. App. P. 6(4), which provides in relevant part, "In estate, guardianship, and probate matters, the following orders are considered final and must be appealed immediately, and failure to do so will result in waiver ofthe right to appeal:

. . . (b) An order admitting or refusing to admit a will to probate

. . . ." M. R. App. P. 4(5)(a) provides in relevant part that a notice ofappeal shall be filed within 30 days from the date ofentry ofthe order from which the appeal istaken. Phillips asserts that Cook waived her right to appeal from the March 25, 2022 Order Admitting 2021 Will to Probate when she failed to do so within 30 days ofits entry. 06/21/2022

Case Number: DA 22-0276Cook offers three reasons why she believes this Court should not grant Phillips's

motion: (1) the Appellate Rules do not require piecemeal appeals; (2) the two orders from which she wishes to appeal are "intrinsically intertwined and indivisible% and (3)M. R. App. P. 4(5)(a) provides that an appeal from one order or judgment calls into question "all previous orders and rulings excepted or objected to which led up to and resulted inthejudgment." Cook further assertsthat she did not needto specify every order to which she took exception in her Notice ofAppeal and she should not be penalized with partial dismissal for doing so. We agree with Phillips that Cook's attempt to appeal from the District Court's March 25, 2022 Order Admitting 2021 Wi11to Probate is untimely and partial dismissal is appropriatehere. InIn re Guardianship & Conservatorship of A.MM,2015 MT250, 380 Mont. 451, 356 P.3d 474, Timothy McCann appealed "numerous orders and judgments

. . . in the guardianship and conservatorshipproceedings"regardinghismother. In re A.MM, 

## ¶ 2. Among other District Court rulings, McCann sought to challenge appointments the court had made on January 15 and February 6, 2014, including the appointments of a temporary guardian and conservator and a temporary visitor. In reA.MM, ¶ 22. Because these orders were immediately appealable under M. R. App. P 6(4)(a)andbecauseMcCann didnotappeal fromthese orderswithin30 days oftheir entry in the District Court, we heldthat his appeal from these orderswas untimely. In re A.MM, ¶ 22. In In re Estate ofDower, 2021 MT 245, 405 Mont. 443, 495 P.3d 1083, Linda Dower appealed from specific rulings the District Court had made regarding her latehusband's estate. Amongthe challengedrulingswasthe court's denial ofDower's motion to remove the Estate's Personal Representative. In re Estate ofDower, ¶30. We declined to address the merits ofDower's arguments on this issue because we determined it was not properly preserved for appeal as she had not filed a notice of appeal within 30 days fromthe dateoftheDistrict Court's orderdenyinghermotion. Weheldthat,under M. R. App. P. 4(5)(a) and 6(4)(a), she would have needed to appeal this order within 30 days ofits entry in order. In re Estate ofDoweY, ¶32.

2Likewise in thepresent case, Cook's appeal oftheMarch 25, 2022 OrderAdmitting

2021 Will to Probate is untimely, as it was filed more than 30 days after the District Court entered that order—an immediately appealable order under M. R. App. P. 6(4). Cook is incorrect that dismissing this part of her appeal penalizes her for being specific in her Notice of Appeal; rather, it saves the parties from the effort of making substantive arguments in their respective appellate briefs when the issue is procedurally barred. IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that this appeal, as to the March 25, 2022 Order Admitting 2021 Will to Probate, is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. This appeal as to the May 23, 2022 Order Denying Motion for ReliefMAY PROCEED. The Clerk is li4cted to provide copies ofthis Order to all counsel ofrecord. Dated thisZr day ofJune, 2022.

Justices

3