Title: LEVC (NEE O BLAK) v CONNORS COLB
Citation: N/A
Docket Number: 13220
State: Montana
Issuer: Montana Supreme Court
Date: October 18, 1976

No. 13220 I N THE SUPREME C O U R T O F THE STATE O F M O N T A N A 1976 JOSEFA LEVC (nee OIBl&) and IVANA OGRIN (nee 0 ' B1z.k , P l a i n t i f f s and Respondents, THE H O N O R A B L E HOLLIS G. CONNORS, Treasurer of t h e S t a t e of Montana, and Keith Colbo, Director, Department of Revenue of the S t a t e of Montana, Defendants and Appellants. Appeal from: D i s t r i c t Court of t h e F i r s t J u d i c i a l D i s t r i c t , Honorable Peter Meloy, D i s t r i c t Judge presiding. Counsel of Record : For Appellants : Hon. Robert L. Woodahl, Attorney General, Helena, Montana Marshall Murray, argued, K a l i s p e l l , Montana For Respondents : Thomas F. Dowling argued, Helena, Montana Submitted: August 31, 1976 Decided : fief 1 8 1 9 7 6 Filed : P'Tf 7 % , '! 1c';cir M r . Chief J u s t i c e James T. Harrison d e l i v e r e d t h e Opinion of t h e Court. This i s a n appeal from a judgment of t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t , L e w i s and Clark County, awarding p l a i n t i f f s funds t h a t had escheated t o t h e S t a t e of Montana. P l a i n t i f f s a r e t h e n i e c e s and h e i r s a t law of Frank O'Blak who d i e d i n t e s t a t e i n B i l l i n g s , Montana, on June 2 4 , 1970. The e s t a t e was administered by p u b l i c a d m i n i s t r a t i o n , and a f t e r f i n d i n g no known h e i r s , it was ordered p a i d t o t h e s t a t e t r e a s u r e r a s escheated funds i n t h e amount of $8,693.93. When t h e h e i r s i n Yugoslavia learned of t h e i r u n c l e ' s d e a t h they f i l e d t h i s a c t i o n t o claim t h e funds. The d i s t r i c t c o u r t r u l e d t h e h e i r s w e r e w i t h i n t h e exception t o t h e two- year s t a t u t e of l i m i t a t i o n s even though t h e a c t i o n w a s f i l e d more than two y e a r s a f t e r t h e escheated funds had been received by t h e state t r e a s u r e r . The h e i r s w e r e granted judgment f o r t h e escheated funds. The i s s u e b e f o r e t h i s Court is whether t h e exception t o t h e two-year s t a t u t e of l i m i t a t i o n s f o r c i t i z e n s of t h e United S t a t e s beyond t h e l i m i t s of t h e United S t a t e s , a p p l i e s t o c i t i - zens of Yugoslavia r e s i d e n t i n Yugoslavia. The s t a t u t e i n q u e s t i o n , s e c t i o n 91-509, R.C.M. 1947, r e a d s i n p e r t i n e n t p a r t : " * * * Such a c t i o n must be brought w i t h i n two ( 2 ) y e a r s from t h e d a t e on which t h e money o r p r o p e r t y i s received by t h e s t a t e t r e a s u r e r , saving, however, t o i n f a n t s and persons of unsound mind, o r c i t i z e n s of t h e United S t a t e s beyond t h e l i m i t s of t h e United S t a t e s , t h e r i g h t t o commence t h e i r a c t i o n a t any t i m e w i t h i n t h e t i m e l i m i t e d o r two ( 2 ) y e a r s a f t e r t h e i r r e s p e c t i v e d i s a b i l i t i e s cease." (Emphasis supplied . ) P l a i n t i f f s a r e n o t c i t i z e n s of t h e United S t a t e s , b u t a r e c i t i z e n s and r e s i d e n t s of t h e Peoples Republic of Yugoslavia. It i s admitted f o r t h i s c a s e t h a t r e c i p r o c i t y of i n h e r i t a n c e r i g h t s and r e c i p r o c i t y of t r a n s f e r of funds e x i s t between t h e United S t a t e s and Yugoslavia. I t i s s e t t l e d by Kolovrat v. Oregon, 366 U.S. 187, 6 L ed 2d 218, 81 S.Ct. 922, and E s t a t e of Spehar, 140 Mont. 76, 367 P.2d 563, t h a t under t h e r e c i p r o c i t y p r o v i s i o n s of an 1881 t r e a t y and i t s "most favored n a t i o n " c l a u s e , Yugoslavian c l a i m a n t s have t h e same r i g h t t o i n h e r i t t h e i r r e l a t i v e s ' personal property a s they would i f they w e r e American c i t i z e n s l i v i n g i n Montana. The r e l e v a n t p o r t i o n s of t h e t r e a t i e s d i r e c t i n g t h a t r e s u l t a r e set o u t i n t h e f o o t n o t e s t o t h e r e p o r t of Kolovrat. The d i s t r i c t c o u r t held t h a t t h e Yugoslavian h e i r s a r e e n t i t l e d t o t h e s a m e exemption t h a t American c i t i z e n s have who a r e o u t s i d e t h e United S t a t e s u n t i l t h e i r d i s a b i l i t y c e a s e s and t h a t t h e i r d i s a b i l i t y reasonably ceased i n t h i s c a s e upon a c t u a l n o t i c e of t h e d e a t h of t h e i r uncle. The Court a l s o i n d i c a t e d t h a t s e c t i o n 91-502, R.C.M. 1947, r e q u i r e s t h e s t a t e t o hold escheated p r o p e r t y i n t r u s t f o r 10 y e a r s w i t h i n which t i m e it may be claimed by f i l i n g an a c t i o n . W e hold t h a t t h e s t a t u t e a p p l i e s t o t h e s e Yugoslavian claimants a s it would t o Montana r e s i d e n t s . There i s no q u e s t i o n they a r e e n t i t l e d t o i n h e r i t property on t h e same b a s i s a s resi- d e n t s . This i s i n accordance with Kolovrat. However, they a r e n o t included i n t h e c l a s s of United S t a t e s c i t i z e n s o u t s i d e t h e United S t a t e s . W e do n o t f e e l compelled t o go beyond t h e holding i n Kolovrat and j u d i c i a l l y d e s i g n a t e them a s w i t h i n t h a t c l a s s and e n t i t l e d t o t h e exception. This exception was enacted i n 1943. A t t h a t t i m e l a r g e numbers of our c i t i z e n s w e r e c a l l e d t o d u t y o u t s i d e t h e United S t a t e s . Presumably t h i s exception was enacted f o r t h e i r b e n e f i t u n t i l they could r e t u r n t o t h e i r homeland. W e a r e r e f e r r e d t o t h e general r u l e s t h a t l i m i t a t i o n s t a t u t e s making exceptions i n favor of persons under d i s a b i l i t y must be s t r i c t l y construed and t h a t c o u r t s w i l l n o t read i n t o s t a t u t e s of l i m i t a t i o n an exemption o r d i s a b i l i t y which has n o t been embodied t h e r e i n . I f w e w e r e t o a c c e p t p l a i n t i f f s ' argument t h a t t h e s t a t - u t e d i d n o t run u n t i l they received n o t i c e of t h e d e a t h , w e would be reading i n t o t h e s t a t u t e an a d d i t i o n a l requirement. Notice of t h e d e a t h of a deceased i s n o t a d i s a b i l i t y o r excep- t i o n t o t h e s t a t u t e . W e a l s o p o i n t o u t t h a t t h e s t a t u t e i n q u e s t i o n here is a l i m i t a t i o n s t a t u t e and a f f e c t s t h e remedy t o a s s e r t t h e r i g h t , n o t t h e r i g h t i t s e l f . The r i g h t of t h e s e h e i r s t o i n h e r i t i s n o t i n question and i s e s t a b l i s h e d . The c a s e is remanded t o t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t with d i r e c t i o n t o apply t h e two-year s t a t u t e of l i m i t a t i o n i n accordance with t h i s opinion. A concur: L ' Chief J u s t i c e M r . J u s t i c e Haswell d i s s e n t i n g : I d i s s e n t . I n m y view t h e s e Yugoslavian claimants a r e e n t i t l e d t o t h e property of t h e i r deceased r e l a t i v e . The provisions of t h e t r e a t i e s held t o apply i n Kolovrat v. Oregon, 366 U . S . 187, 81 S.Ct. 9 2 2 , 6 L ed 2d 218, a r e broader than t h e s p e c i f i c holding required i n t h a t case. The following i s a quote from one of t h e t r e a t i e s held t o apply i n Kolovrat and is s e t o u t i n a footnote t o Kolovrat a t page 223: " ' I n whatever r e l a t e s t o * * * acquiring and disposing of property of every s o r t and denomina- t i o n , e i t h e r by sale, donation, exchange, t e s t a - ment, o r i n any o t h e r manner whatsoever, * * * t h e c i t i z e n s of t h e two c o n t r a c t i n g p a r t i e s s h a l l r e c i p r o c a l l y enjoy t h e same p r i v i l e q e s , l i b e r t i e s , and r i q h t s , a s n a t i v e c i t i z e n s * * * . I " (Emphasis added. ) Although t h e d e c i s i o n i n t h i s c a s e n e c e s s a r i l y goes beyond Kolovrat because we a r e concerned here with a s t a t u t e of l i m i t a - t i o n s where t h e r i g h t t o i n h e r i t is conceded, t h e emphasized portion of t h e t r e a t y d i c t a t e s t h a t t h e s e h e i r s have t h e s a m e p r i v i l e g e a s n a t i v e c i t i z e n s under t h e s t a t u t e of l i m i t a t i o n s . The t r e a t y r e q u i r e s t h a t i n whatever r e l a t e s t o acquiring and disposing of property, t h e s e h e i r s a r e t h e same a s n a t i v e c i t i z e n s . These words do not allow a d i s t i n c t i o n between t h e r i g h t t o i n h e r i t , e s t a b l i s h e d i n Kolovrat, and t h e remedy t o ob- t a i n t h a t r i g h t a s a f f e c t e d by a l i m i t a t i o n s t a t u t e . Where t h e l e g i s l a t u r e has made an exception f o r United S t a t e s c i t i z e n s , t h e t r e a t y r e q u i r e s t h a t same exception be applied t o t h e s e h e i r s . Therefore, because United S t a t e s c i t i z e n s a r e e n t i t l e d t o claim within two years of a c t u a l n o t i c e of t h e d e a t h of t h e i r deceased r e l a t i v e i n Yugoslavia, Yugoslavian c i t i z e n s a r e e n t i t l e d t o claim within t h e same t i m e period and t h e claim here involved i s n o t barred. Accordingly I would a f f i r m t h e judgment of t h e d i s t r i c t court. J u s t i c e - 5 -