Title: MATTER OF HOLMES
Citation: N/A
Docket Number: 14379
State: Montana
Issuer: Montana Supreme Court
Date: August 27, 1979

No. 14379 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA 1979 IN THE MATTER OF THE ESTATE OF CHARLES LIVINGSTONE HOLMES, deceased. Appeal from: District Court of the Nineteenth Judicial ~istrict, Honorable Robert M. Holter, Judge presiding. Counsel of Record: For Appellant: Jardine, Stephenson, Blewett & Weaver, Great Falls, Montana Jack L. Lewis argued, Great Falls, Montana For Respondent: Fennessy, Crocker & Harman, Libby, Montana Evans and German, Libby, Montana Ann German argued, Libby, Montana Filed: AUG 2 , ; 1q-q ". - Submitted: June 14, 1979 Decided : AOG 2 ; 1979 Mr. Justice John Conway Harrison delivered the Opinion of the Court. c his is an appeal from a District Court order finding that the will of Charles Livingstone Holmes provided for a charitable bequest within the purview of Montana's Mortmain Statute and therefore was valid only as to one-third of the decedent's estate and that the remaining two-thirds of the estate should pass to the heirs of the decedent by operation of law. The beneficiary of the charitable bequest negated by the order, the Shriners Hospitals for Crippled Children, appeals. On January 5, 1978, just 12 days prior to his death, Charles Holmes executed a last will in which he devised all his property to the Shriners Crippled Children's Home of San Francisco, California. The will acknowledged that dece- dent's immediate family consisted of two adult sons but specifically stated that no provisions be made for them. Decedent had executed a prior will in 1977 in which he disinherited his sons and left all his property to the Shriners Hospitals after an intervening trust. Following Holmes' death, the personal representative named in his will petitioned for formal probate. The peti- tion was set for hearing on March 23, 1978, and the Shriners were notified of the hearing. At the hearing, decedent's son, Charles Holmes, Jr., orally objected to the will on the basis of lack of testamentary capacity. Shriners did not appear at the hearing and were not given notice of the objection to the will. The District Court took the matter under advisement. On April 24, 1978, the District Court entered an order admitting the will to probate but declaring two-thirds of t h e d e v i s e void under s e c t i o n 72-11-334, MCA, Montana's Mortmain S t a t u t e . The c l e r k of c o u r t d i d n o t s e r v e n o t i c e of e n t r y of t h e o r d e r on t h e Shriners. The personal repre- s e n t a t i v e d i d send t h e S h r i n e r s a letter a d v i s i n g them of t h e voidance of two-thirds of t h e bequest. They r e c e i v e d t h e letter on May 5, 1978. O n May 17, 1978, t h e S h r i n e r s appealed t h e m a t t e r t o t h i s Court. Appellant raises s e v e r a l i s s u e s on appeal i n c l u d i n g t h e c o n s t i t u t i o n a l i t y of t h e Mortmain S t a t u t e and i t s continued v a l i d i t y under t h e Montana Uniform Probate Code. Respon- d e n t , Charles Holmes, Jr., a s s e r t s t h e Mortmain S t a t u t e i s c o n s t i t u t i o n a l and v a l i d under Montana's Uniform Probate Code. H e a l s o contends a p p e l l a n t cannot raise t h e chal- l e n g e s t o t h e s t a t u t e f o r t h e f i r s t t i m e on appeal. W e w i l l f i r s t a d d r e s s t h e arguments concerning a p p e l l a n t ' s a b i l i t y t o r a i s e t h e i s s u e s p e r t a i n i n g t o t h e v a l i d i t y of t h e Mortmain S t a t u t e . Respondent contends t h a t s i n c e a p p e l l a n t made no ap- pearance i n District Court t o r a i s e i t s c h a l l e n g e s t o t h e Mortmain S t a t u t e , well-established p r i n c i p l e s of l a w p r e v e n t it from doing s o on appeal. Appellant a s s e r t s t h a t it was n o t given s u f f i c i e n t n o t i c e of t h e proceeding i n t h e D i s - t r i c t Court t o allow it t o p r e s e n t i t s arguments on t h e v a l i d i t y of t h e Mortmain S t a t u t e . Appellant argues t h a t by r a i s i n g t h e i s s u e s on appeal, it raises them a t t h e f i r s t o p p o r t u n i t y afforded. T h i s i s s u e can be resolved by considering t h e n o t i c e r e q u i r e d a t d i f f e r e n t s t a g e s of formal probate proceeding and t h e e f f e c t of l a c k of r e q u i r e d n o t i c e on any j u d i c i a l a c t i o n taken a s a r e s u l t of t h e proceedings. When formal probate proceedings begin, t h e Montana Uniform Probate code (MUPC), s e c t i o n 72-3-305, MCA, sets o u t t h e n o t i c e require- ments. The s e c t i o n s t a t e s n o t i c e of t h e time and place of t h e hearing on t h e p e t i t i o n f o r formal probate s h a l l be given t o p a r t i e s including t h e decedent's h e i r s and devisees named i n any w i l l . The s t a t u t e e f f e c t i v e l y d e a l s with t h e n o t i c e requirements a t t h e o u t s e t of formal probate pro- ceedings. I n t h i s case, t h e s t a t u t e was complied with a s t h e S h r i n e r s were n o t i f i e d of t h e i n i t i a l hearing. Next, t h e n o t i c e required of any w i l l c o n t e s t must be considered. MUPC s e c t i o n 72-1-303, MCA, e n t i t l e d "Pleadings-- when o r d e r s o r n o t i c e binding one binds another--represen- t a t i o n , " d e a l s with formal proceedings involving e s t a t e s . Subsection (3) of t h a t provision s t a t e s , "Notice i s required a s follows: ( a ) Notice as prescribed by 72-1-301 s h a l l be given t o every i n t e r e s t e d person . . ." I n t e r e s t e d person under t h e M U P C includes named devisees. Section 72-1- 1 0 3 ( 2 1 ) , MCA. Although subsection (3) does n o t go on t o s t a t e t h a t t h e n o t i c e required by t h e subsection means n o t i c e of w i l l c o n t e s t s , t h e heading and context of t h e s e c t i o n i n d i c a t e t h e n o t i c e r e f e r r e d t o i n t h e s t a t u t e is n o t i c e t o i n t e r e s t e d persons of pleadings f i l e d i n formal probate proceedings. Since t h e M U P C r e q u i r e s p a r t i e s who oppose t h e probate of a w i l l t o s t a t e t h e i r o b j e c t i o n s i n t h e form of pleadings, s e c t i o n 72-3-308, MCA, w i l l c o n t e s t s would be pleadings and a l l i n t e r e s t e d persons would have t o be given n o t i c e they had been f i l e d . The S h r i n e r s received no n o t i c e of t h e w i l l c o n t e s t here. The n o t i c e required on t h e e n t r y of an order i n formal probate proceedings must a l s o be considered. his does n o t f a l l under t h e c o n t r o l of a s p e c i f i c provision of t h e M U P C . To determine t h e n o t i c e required a t t h i s s t a g e of t h e pro- ceedings, r e f e r e n c e must be made t o t h e Montana Rules o f c i v i l Procedure. The M U P C provides f o r t h i s s t e p i n s i t u a - t i o n s n o t s p e c i f i c a l l y covered by t h e MUPC. S e c t i o n 72-1- 207, MCA. The r u l e s r e q u i r e t h e c l e r k of c o u r t t o s e r v e n o t i c e of e n t r y of an o r d e r upon each p a r t y t o an a c t i o n who i s n o t i n d e f a u l t f o r f a i l u r e t o appear. Rule 7 7 ( d ) , M.R.Civ.P. To f a l l under Rule 7 7 ( d ) , a named d e v i s e e must s a t i s f y two c r i t e r i a . The d e v i s e e must be a p a r t y under t h e meaning of t h e r u l e and t h e d e v i s e e must n o t be i n d e f a u l t f o r f a i l u r e t o appear. Regarding p a r t i e s t o a probate pro- ceeding, t h e M U P C d e f i n e s " i n t e r e s t e d persons" a s i n c l u d i n g ". . . h e i r s , d e v i s e e s , c h i l d r e n , spouses, c r e d i t o r s , bene- f i c i a r i e s , and any o t h e r s having a p r o p e r t y r i g h t i n o r claim a g a i n s t a t r u s t e s t a t e o r t h e e s t a t e of a decedent, ward, o r p r o t e c t e d person which may be a f f e c t e d by t h e proceedings." S e c t i o n 72-1-103(21), MCA (emphasis added). I n s e c t i o n 72-3-305(2), MCA, t h e M U P C r e q u i r e s n o t i c e of t h e i n i t i a t i o n of formal probate proceedings t o be given t o p a r t i e s including named devisees. These two s e c t i o n s of t h e M U P C i n d i c a t e t h e l e g i s l a t u r e intended named d e v i s e e s t o be p a r t i e s t o formal probate proceedings and, t h e r e f o r e , re- c e i v e n o t i c e under Rule 7 7 ( d ) . Case l a w from o t h e r j u r i s - d i c t i o n s f u r t h e r s u b s t a n t i a t e s t h i s p o i n t . The ~ a l i f o r n i a Court of Appeals h e l d named b e n e f i c i a r i e s i n a testamentary t r u s t t o be i n d i s p e n s i b l e p a r t i e s t o t h e l i t i g a t i o n i n I n R e t h e E s t a t e of Reed (1968), 259 Cal.App.2d 14, 66 ~ a l . ~ p t r . 193, 198-99. O n t h e second p o i n t , although t h e ~ h r i n e r s d i d n o t make a n appearance i n t h e m a t t e r , no d e f a u l t was re- quested o r entered. Thus, named d e v i s e e s i n w i l l s who a r e n o t i n d e f a u l t f o r f a i l u r e t o appear a r e e n t i t l e d t o n o t i c e of t h e e n t r y of an o r d e r i n formal probate proceedings. he S h r i n e r s s t a n d i n t h a t p o s i t i o n i n t h i s case. They should have been given n o t i c e of t h e e n t r y of t h e o r d e r by t h e c l e r k of c o u r t . Under t h e MUPC, t h e S h r i n e r s w e r e e n t i t l e d t o n o t i c e a t a l l s t a g e s of t h e formal probate proceedings. They d i d n o t r e c e i v e n o t i c e of t h e w i l l c o n t e s t o r t h e e n t r y of t h e o r d e r p a r t i a l l y admitting t h e w i l l t o probate. The M U P C and t h e Montana Rules of C i v i l Procedure d i c t a t e t h e consequences of f a i l u r e t o provide t h e r e q u i r e d n o t i c e . The M U P C s t a t e s where n o t i c e i s r e q u i r e d , i n t e r e s t e d persons may be bound by o r d e r s where n o t i c e i n conformity w i t h M U P C p r o v i s i o n s was given. S e c t i o n 72-3-111(2), MCA. The n e g a t i v e i n f e r e n c e of t h a t p r o v i s i o n would be t h a t o r d e r s i s s u e d without n o t i c e a r e n o t binding on t h e p a r t i e s t h a t do n o t r e c e i v e n o t i c e . Under t h a t provision, t h e o r d e r e n t e r e d i n t h i s c a s e would have no binding e f f e c t on t h e S h r i n e r s . The e f f e c t o f l a c k of n o t i c e of e n t r y of t h e o r d e r of t h e District Court i s covered by c a s e law i n t e r p r e t i n g t h e Montana Rules of C i v i l Procedure. Rule 77(d) r e q u i r e s t h e c l e r k of c o u r t t o send n o t i c e of o r d e r s e n t e r e d i n c a s e s t o p a r t i e s t o a n a c t i o n n o t i n d e f a u l t f o r f a i l u r e t o appear. I f t h e c l e r k f a i l s t o send t h e n o t i c e , t h e t i m e f o r a p a r t y t o appeal an o r d e r does n o t begin t o run. P i e r c e Packing Co. v. The District Court (1978), Mon t . , 579 P.2d 760, 761-62, 35 St.Rep. 656, 658-59; Haywood v. S e d i l l o (1975), 167 Mont. 101, 104, 535 P.2d 1014. his r u l e ap- p l i e s r e g a r d l e s s of a c t u a l n o t i c e of t h e e n t r y of t h e o r d e r by t h e p a r t y seeking t o appeal t h e o r d e r . P i e r c e , 579 ~ . 2 d a t 761. H e r e , t h e record does n o t d i s c l o s e any n o t i c e having been s e n t t o t h e S h r i n e r s by t h e c l e r k a t any t i m e . Under P i e r c e , t h e t i m e f o r appealing t h e o r d e r of t h e is- t r i c t Court has n o t y e t begun t o run. This i s important i n formal probate proceedings because t h e M U P C allows t h e ~ i s t r i c t Court t o modify o r v a c a t e o r d e r s i n t h e proceedings w i t h i n t h e time allowed f o r appeal. S e c t i o n 72-3-318, MCA. Since t h e t i m e f o r appeal has n o t y e t begun t o run i n t h i s matter, n e i t h e r has t h e t i m e t o r e q u e s t t h e c o u r t t o modify o r v a c a t e t h e o r d e r e n t e r e d here. The S h r i n e r s can s t i l l r e q u e s t t h e D i s t r i c t Court t o modify o r v a c a t e t h e o r d e r t h e c o u r t e n t e r e d on t h e b a s i s of t h e i s s u e s r a i s e d by t h e S h r i n e r s . The above a n a l y s i s shows a p p e l l a n t was n o t given proper n o t i c e of t h e c o n t e n t t o Charles Holmes' w i l l o r t h e e n t r y of t h e o r d e r voiding two-thirds of t h e d e v i s e t o t h e S h r i n e r s . The e f f e c t of t h e improper n o t i c e i s t h a t t h e o r d e r i s s u e d by t h e D i s t r i c t Court does n o t bind a p p e l l a n t and t h e t i m e f o r a p p e l l a n t t o p e t i t i o n t h e D i s t r i c t Court t o modify o r v a c a t e t h e o r d e r has n o t elapsed. W e t h e r e f o r e remand t h e c a s e t o t h e D i s t r i c t Court t o consider any p e t i t i o n appel- l a n t might make t o modify o r v a c a t e t h e o r d e r e n t e r e d by t h e D i s t r i c t Court. Having determined t h e case must be r e t u r n e d t o t h e D i s - t r i c t Court f o r f u r t h e r proceedings, w e w i l l now consider t h e v a l i d i t y of t h e Mortmain S t a t u t e f o r t h e guidance of t h e District Court i n r e c o n s i d e r i n g t h e matter. Appellant bases i t s c h a l l e n g e s t o t h e s t a t u t e on c o n s t i t u t i o n a l grounds and a l s o argue t h e Mortmain S t a t u t e c o n f l i c t s w i t h p r o v i s i o n s of t h e Montana Uniform Probate Code, t h u s being impliedly repealed by t h e code. Addressing t h e i s s u e of implied re- p e a l of t h e Mortmain S t a t u t e by c o n f l i c t i n g p r o v i s i o n s i n t h e MUPC, w e f i n d t h a t no case l a w e x i s t s concerning t h e e f - f e c t of adoption of t h e Uniform Probate Code on a ~ o r t m a i n S t a t u t e . Only seven s t a t e s still have Mortmain S t a t u t e s . 52 Notre D a m e Lawyer 638, by Kymson F. DesJardins, a t 639 (1977). Of t h e seven s t a t e s with Nortmain S t a t u t e s , only Montana, Idaho and F l o r i d a have adopted t h e Uniform Probate Code. Neither Idaho nor Florida have r u l e d on the v a l i d i t y of t h e Mortmain S t a t u t e under the Uniform Code, nor d i d those s t a t e s adopt a provision i n t h e i r Uniform Probate Code comparable t o s e c t i o n 72-1-106, MCA, which s t a t e s : "Should any provision of t h i s code c o n f l i c t with any provisions of o t h e r s t a t u t e s of t h e s t a t e of Montana and r e l a t i n g t o probate, guardianship, o r o t h e r s u b j e c t s incorporated i n t h i s code and such o t h e r s t a t u t e o r s t a t - u t e s w a s o r w e r e adopted p r i o r t o t h e enact- ment of t h i s code, t h e provisions of t h i s code s h a l l be deemed t o be c o n t r o l l i n g . " To determine t h e v a l i d i t y of t h e Mortmain S t a t u t e under t h e Uniform Probate Code, we must t u r n t o general r u l e s of s t a - t u t o r y construction aided by s e c t i o n 72-1-106, MCA. I n S t a t e v. Langan (1968), 151 Mont. 558, 445 P.2d 565, t h e Court faced t h e problem of determining t h e e f f e c t of Uniform Drug Act on t h e general s t a t u t e s i n t h e Criminal Code. The Uniform Drug Act provided a comprehensive scheme f o r r e g u l a t i o n of t h e preparation, possession and s a l e of n a r c o t i c drugs. Under t h e s e f a c t s , t h e Court held t h e l e g i s l a t u r e intended t o cover t h e whole f i e l d of n a r c o t i c s r e g u l a t i o n under t h e Uniform Act. Where provisions of t h e general laws could n o t be harmonized t o give e f f e c t t o both t h e s p e c i f i c law i n t h e a r e a and general l e g i s l a t i o n passed p r i o r t o t h e adoption of t h e comprehensive l e g i s l a t i o n , t h e c o n f l i c t i n g provisions of t h e e a r l i e r law w e r e repealed. Langan, 151 Mont. a t 564. I n S t a t e v. Holt (1948), 1 2 1 Mont. 459, 194 P . 2 d X m t h e Court i n t e r p r e t e d t h e e f f e c t of S t a t e Liquor Control Act, a comprehensive piece of l e g i s l a t i o n enacted i n 1933 i n a n t i c i p a t i o n of a "day of j u b i l e e " following t h e r e p e a l of Eighteenth Amendment on s t a t e p r o h i b i t i o n laws n o t e x p r e s s l y repealed by t h e Control A c t . I n doing so, t h e Court s t a t e d t h a t while r e p e a l s by i m p l i c a t i o n a r e n o t favored, where an i r r e c o n c i l a b l e c o n f l i c t e x i s t s between e a r l i e r and l a t e r s t a t u t e s , t h e c o u r t s do n o t h e s i t a t e t o d e c l a r e t h e e a r l i e r s t a t u t e repealed by t h e l a t e r l e g i s l a t i v e a c t i o n . Halt, 121 Mont. a t 468. The Court f u r t h e r s a i d : " E s p e c i a l l y i s t h e r e p e a l of t h e p r i o r incon- s i s t e n t A c t h e l d t o be t h e i n e v i t a b l e r e s u l t where t h e l a t e r A c t i s a comprehensive A c t ' e s t a b l i s h i n g e l a b o r a t e i n c l u s i o n s and exclu- s i o n s of persons, t h i n g s and r e l a t i o n s h i p s o r d i n a r i l y a s s o c i a t e d w i t h t h e s u b j e c t . ' Sutherland on S t a t u t o r y Construction, para- graph 2018." Halt, 121 Mont. a t 467-68. See a l s o , S t a t e e x rel. Marlenee v. District Court (1979), Mont. , 592 P.2d 153, 36 St.Rep. 457. - Given t h e s e r u l e s of c o n s t r u c t i o n and t h e i r s p e c i f i c implementation under Montana c a s e law, t h e Mortmain S t a t u t e must be d e c l a r e d impliedly repealed by t h e adoption of t h e Montana Uniform Probate Code i f t h e s t a t u t e c o n f l i c t s with t h e Uniform Code i n such a manner a s t o be ". . . wholly i n c o n s i s t e n t , incompatible, and n o t capable of being recon- c i l e d " w i t h t h e code. S t a t e e x rel. Jenkins v. Carisch Theatres Inc. (1977), Mont . , 564 P.2d 1316, 1319, 34 St.Rep. 481. The Mortmain S t a t u t e allows o n l y one-third of a t e s t a - t o r ' s e s t a t e t o p a s s t o a c h a r i t y under a w i l l executed w i t h i n t h i r t y days of t h e t e s t a t o r ' s death. S e c t i o n 72-11- 334, MCA. When implemented, t h e s t a t u t e r e q u i r e s a s much as two-thirds of a t e s t a t o r ' s e s t a t e t o p a s s c o n t r a r y t o t h e t e s t a t o r ' s i n t e n t a s expressed i n a w i l l . The Montana Uniform Probate Code c l e a r l y r e q u i r e s t h e i n t e n t of t h e t e s t a t o r t o c o n t r o l t h e passing of h i s property. The Code s t a t e s : "The i n t e n t i o n of a t e s t a t o r a s expressed i n h i s w i l l c o n t r o l s t h e l e g a l e f f e c t of h i s d i s p o s i t i o n s . . ." Section 72-2-501, MCA. Section 72-1-102, NCA, provides: " ( 1 ) This code s h a l l be l i b e r a l l y construed and applied t o promote i t s underlying purposes and p o l i c i e s . " ( 2 ) The underlying purposes and p o l i c i e s of t h i s code a r e to: " ( b ) discover and make e f f e c t i v e t h e i n t e n t of a decedent i n d i s t r i b u t i o n of h i s property;" These s t a t u t e s obviously c o n f l i c t . The Uniform Probate Code mandates implementation of t h e t e s t a t o r ' s i n t e n t . The Mortmain S t a t u t e prevents implementation of t h e i n t e n t ex- pressed i n a w i l l as t o a s much as two-thirds of t h e testa- t o r ' s e s t a t e . J u d i c i a l construction cannot r e c o n c i l e t h e s t a t u t e s . I t i s impossible t o devise a system within t h e t e r m s of t h e Mortmain S t a t u t e and t h e Code t o give e f f e c t t o t h e i n t e n t of t h e t e s t a t o r on the one hand and allow two- t h i r d s of an e s t a t e t o pass contrary t o t h e express language of t h e t e s t a t o r ' s w i l l on t h e o t h e r hand. Applying t h e above r u l e s of s t a t u t o r y construction t o t h e Mortmain S t a t u t e subsequent t o t h e passage of t h e Uni- form Probate Code, we f i n d Mortmain must f a l l . The l e g i s - l a t u r e enacted t h e s t a t u t e i n 1893. Eighty-one years l a t e r t h e l e g i s l a t u r e enacted a comprehensive piece of l e g i s l a t i o n s p e c i f i c a l l y dealing with t h e a r e a covered by Mortmain. The comprehensive l e g i s l a t i o n c o n f l i c t s with t h e p r i o r enacted s t a t u t e . The l e g i s l a t u r e thus impliedly repealed t h e Mort- main S t a t u t e and we now s o hold. A t t h i s p o i n t w e deem it w i s e t o i n j e c t a note on t h e scope of t h e holding i n t h i s case. W e hold only t h a t the p r o v i s i o n s i n t h e Montana Uniform Probate Code mandating t h e implementation o f t h e t e s t a t o r ' s i n t e n t , impliedly r e p e a l a p r i o r enacted and c o n f l i c t i n g s t a t u t e - - t h e Mortmain S t a t u t e . By t h i s holding, we do n o t suggest t h i s same reasoning a p p l i e s t o s e c t i o n s w i t h i n t h e Code i t s e l f , such a s t h e safeguards provided f o r an omitted spouse o r p r e t e r m i t t e d c h i l d r e n , t h a t may r e q u i r e property t o p a s s i n a manner n o t set o u t i n t h e t e s t a t o r ' s w i l l . The r u l e s of c o n s t r u c t i o n d e a l i n g with t h e e f f e c t of subsequent comprehensive l e g i s - l a t i o n on e x i s t i n g laws a r e n o t t h e same a s those p e r t a i n i n g t o c o n s t r u i n g s e p a r a t e s e c t i o n s of comprehensive l e g i s l a t i o n . F u r t h e r , t h e l e g i s l a t u r e c l e a r l y intended such p r o v i s i o n s t o be exceptions t o t h e r u l e t h a t t h e t e s t a t o r ' s i n t e n t c o n t r o l s t h e d i s p o s i t i o n of h i s property. S e c t i o n 72-3-101, MCA. Having found t h e Mortmain S t a t u t e i m p l i e d l y repealed by t h e adoption of t h e Uniform Probate Code, w e need n o t ad- d r e s s t h e c o n s t i t u t i o n a l i s s u e s r a i s e d by a p p e l l a n t . The c a s e i s remanded t o t h e District Court with d i r e c - t i o n s t o allow a p p e l l a n t t o p e t i t i o n t h e D i s t r i c t Court t o modify o r v a c a t e t h e o r d e r e n t e r e d by t h e D i s t r i c t Court. I n considering any such p e t i t i o n , t h e District Court i s advised t h a t t h e adoption of t h e Montana Uniform Probate Code impliedly r e p e a l s s e c t i o n 72-11-334, MCA, Montana's Mortmain S t a t u t e . n W e concur: /" I ? A & Chief a u s t i c e $ f & 7 & J