Title: ESTATE OF DETIENNE
Citation: N/A
Docket Number: 82-328
State: Montana
Issuer: Montana Supreme Court
Date: January 20, 1983

NO. 82-328 I N T H E SUPREME COURT O F T H E STATE OF M O N T A N A 1983 I N THE M A T T E R O F T H E ESTATE O F CHARLES DeTIENNE, Deceased. Appeal from: D i s t r i c t Court of t h e F i f t e e n t h J u d i c i a l D i s t r i c t , I n and f o r t h e County of Roosevelt Honorable M. James S o r t e , Judge p r e s i d i n g . Counsel of Record: For Appellant: Garden, McCann & Schuster, Wolf P o i n t , Montana Gerard M. Schuster, Wolf P o i n t , Montana For Respondent : McIntee & Whisenand, W i l l i s t o n , North Dakota Submitted on b r i e f s : December 9 , 1982 Decided: January 29, 1983 F i l e d : JAi\I 2 0 1983 --- - Clerk M r . J u s t i c e John Conway H a r r i s o n d e l i v e r e d t h e Opinion of t h e C o u r t . P e t i t i o n e r s / a p p e l l a n t s f i l e d a p e t i t i o n f o r an o r d e r of d i s t r i b u t i o n i n i n t e s t a c y nunc p r o t u n c i n t h e District Court of t h e F i f t e e n t h J u d i c i a l District i n and f o r t h e County of R o o s e v e l t . The p e t i t i o n was heard on J u n e 1 4 , 1982, and on J u l y 8, 1982, t h e D i s t r i c t Court ordered t h e p e t i t i o n be d e n i e d . P e t i t i o n e r s a p p e a l . E l v i n a predeceased h e r f a t h e r , C h a r l e s DeTienne who d i e d i n t e s t a t e i n 1945. C h a r l e s DeTiennels estate, comprised of t h e f a m i l y farm, was d i s t r i b u t e d to t h e s i x s u r v i v i n g DeTienne c h i l d r e n . N e i t h e r E l v i n a n o r h e r h e i r s were mentioned i n t h e i n t e s t a c y p r o c e e d i n g s . S h o r t l y a f t e r t h e estate was s e t t l e d , Young DeTienne purchased t h e i n t e r e s t s of t h e remaining DeTienne c h i l d r e n a t a p u b l i c a u c t i o n . Young DeTienne s o l d a small por- t i o n of t h e farm land i n 1945 and worked t h e rest of t h e land u n t i l he r e t i r e d . Upon h i s r e t i r e m e n t he s o l d t h e farm land to h i s t h r e e c h i l d r e n . On March 11, 1982, E l v i n a Brenden's h e i r s p e t i t i o n e d t h e District Court f o r o r d e r of d i s t r i b u t i o n i n i n t e s t a c y nunc p r o t u n c . P e t i t i o n e r s claim t h e d e c r e e of d i s t r i b u t i o n of C h a r l e s DeTiennels estate " m i s t a k e n l y e x c l u d e s t h e h e i r s of E l v i n a DeTienne B r e n d e n l s b e n e f i c i a r i e s of s a i d e s t a t e , " and t h a t t h e m i s t a k e was d i s c o v e r e d J u l y 7, 1981. The District Court denied t h e p e t i t i o n . P e t i t i o n e r s a p p e a l . The s u b s t a n c e of t h e i s s u e s r a i s e d on appeal is whether t h e D i s t r i c t Court e r r e d i n denying t h e p e t i t i o n f o r a n o r d e r of d i s t r i b u t i o n i n i n t e s t a c y nunc p r o t u n c . The s t a t u t e i n e f f e c t a t t h e t i m e of t h e d i s t r i b u t i o n was s e c t i o n 91-3516 , R.C.M. 1947. The s e c t i o n states: " . . . t h e c o u r t may, upon motion of any p a r t y i n t e r e s t e d , or upon its own motion, w i t h i n s i x t y d a y s a f ter t h e r e n d i t i o n o f t h e d e c r e e 1 5 - - - - - - cases o f i n a d v e r t e n c e , or w i t h i n s i x t y days - - a f t e r t h e d i s c o v e r y of t h e f a c t s c o n s t i t u t i n g t h e f r a u d , reopen or s e t a s i d e any d e c r e e of any s e t t l e m e n t on t h e grounds of i n a d v e r t e n c e o r f r a u d . " (Emphasis s u p p l i e d . ) Here, p e t i t i o n e r s have claimed t h e d i s t r i b u t i o n of C h a r l e s DeTiennels estate, " m i s t a k e n l y e x c l u d e s t h e h e i r s of E l v i n a DeTienne." To rest upon a claim of m i s t a k e , a p e t i t i o n must be f i l e d w i t h i n s i x t y days a f t e r t h e r e n d i t i o n of t h e d e c r e e to comply w i t h t h e e f f e c t i v e s t a t u t e , s e c t i o n 91-3516, R.C.M. 1947. Here, t h e d e c r e e was e n t e r e d i n 1945 w h i l e t h e p e t i t i o n was f i l e d i n 1981, n e a r l y t h i r t y - s i x y e a r s beyond t h e s t a t u t o r y t i m e l i m i t . The District Court c o r r e c t l y denied t h e p e t i t i o n . P e t i t i o n e r s have suggested f r a u d i n t h e i r a p p e l l a t e b r i e f y e t f r a u d was n o t a l l e g e d s p e c i f i c a l l y i n t h e i r p e t i t i o n as r e q u i r e d b y Rule 9 ( b ) , M.R.Civ.P. W e n o t e , however, t h a t any a l l e g a t i o n o f f r a u d was r e q u i r e d to be brought b e f o r e t h e District Court w i t h i n s i x t y days of d i s c o v e r y of t h e f a c t s of t h e f r a u d as pro- v i d e d i n s e c t i o n 91-3516, R.C.M. 1947. Here, p e t i t i o n e r s state t h e m i s t a k e w a s d i s c o v e r e d J u l y 7 , 1981, y e t t h e p e t i t i o n was n o t f i l e d u n t i l March 11, 1982. Even i f t h e r e was m i s t a k e which c o u l d c o n s t i t u t e f r a u d , t h e p e t i t i o n was n o t t i m e l y f i l e d . Judgment is af f irmed .