Title: ESTATE OF HETLAND
Citation: N/A
Docket Number: 12776
State: Montana
Issuer: Montana Supreme Court
Date: February 4, 1975

No. 12776 I N THE SUPKEME C O U R T O F T H E STATE O F M O N T A N A 1974 I N THE MATTER O F THE ESTATE O F 0. B. HETLAND, a l s o known a s O S W A L D B. HETLAND, Deceased. Appeal from: D i s t r i c t Court of the Thirteenth J u d i c i a l D i s t r i c t , Honorable Robert H. Wilson, Judge presiding. Counsel of Record: For Appellant : Hibbs, Sweeney and Colberg, Billings, Montana Maurice R. Colberg, Jr., argued, Billings, Montana For Respondent : Ayers and Alterowitz, Red Lodge, Montana Arthur W. Ayers, Jr., argued, Red Lodge, Montana Submitted: November 14, 1974 Decided: - 4 ,975 --- Filed : -.. ; M r . J u s t i c e Gene B. Daly delivered the Opinion of the Court. This case concerns construction of the holographic w i l l of one 0. B". Hetland, deceased. O.B. Hetland died October 14, 1967. H i s w i l l , dated July 9 , 1964, was duly admitted t o probate November 8, 1967, and Antonia Hetland, h i s widow, was appointed administratrix with w i l l annexed the same day. Letters of administration were issued November 15, The e s t a t e of O.B. Hetland was not completely probated nor distributed when the widow and administratrix, Antonia Hetland, died i n t e s t a t e ~eptember 17, 1973. A t the time of h i s death, Hetland and Antonia had been married only s i x years and there were no children of the marriage. Hetland had been previously married t o Karen Hetland who died October 24, 1959. There were two children born of t h a t marriage, Anne Hilderman and John Hetland; respondents i n t h i s action. Antonia Hetland was married previously and had one son, her only h e i r and next of kin, George Kuchan. Upon the death of Antonia Hetland, George ~ u c h a n ' s wife, Eva Ruth Kuchan, was appointed administratrix of the e s t a t e of Antonia Hetland. George Icuchan and the administratrix, Ruth Kuchan, a r e the appellants i n t h i s action. Ann Hilderman, daughter of O.B. Hetland, was appointed adminis- t r a t r i x de bonis non with t h e w i l l annexed of the unfinished probate of the O.B. Hetland e s t a t e . The e n t i r e t e x t of the holographic w i l l reads: "July 9, 1964 To W h o m it may concern. This i s a preface t o m y l a s t w i l l & testament. The princapel reason f o r t h i s w i l l i s t o protect m y wife Antonia from harm and want when I am gone. She has given m e genuine Happiness, taught m e tolerance and com- passion, i n the few years we have been together. I f I have wounded anyone I ask forgiveness and ask f o r piece with 14y God. Now this my last Will & Testament. I want my wife Antonia to have all of my personal property such as Truck, tools, Television household goods glasses an tobacco pouch. I want her to have free use of and administer my estate for Life or as long as she cares to and when she gets ready to Liquify my estate I want it done in this Manner. Upon my death I want My Estate to pay funeral.& other expenses that is necessary. If the estate has to Borrow Money for my funeral expenses I want her to have the authority to do it and the estate to carry the debt until the estate is Liquified if Necessary. When my estate is Liquified I want 1 4 y Wife Antonia to have one third of it. My Daughter Annie or her heirs to have one third and My Son Johnne or his heirs to have the remaining third. May God Have Nercy on us All. /s/ Oswald ( O . B . ) Hetland." The property in dispute consists of real property located in Billings, Montana, valued on October 14, 1967 at $30,000. The parties agree the present value is higher. Appellants, George Kuchan, Antonia ~etland's only heir, and Eva Ruth Kuchan, the administratrix of Antonia Hetland's estate, contend that the remainder of the estate of O.B. Hetland, should be distributed one-third to the estate of Antonia Hetland, one- third to Anne Hilderman and one-third to John Hetland. Respondent, Anne Hilderman, on behalf of herself and her brother John Hetland, contends the remainder of the estate of O.B. Hetland should be distributed one-half to Anne Hilderman and one- half to John Hetland. The district court in its findings of fact and conclusions of law, held: "That by the terms of said will decedent did devise to Antonia Hetland a life estate in all of decedent's real estate and that the property in which Antonia Hetland was vested with a life estate was not liquidated during the lifetime of Antonia Hetland and that the provisions of said will as to liquidation and division are therefore in- operative and of no effect. I I The court therefore terminated Antonia Hetland's life estate, and awarded the remainder to O.B. ~etland's two children, Anne Hilderman and John Hetland. The cardinal r u l e i n the construction of w i l l s ,:is t h a t a w i l l i s t o be construed according t o the i n t e n t of the t e s t a t o r . Section 91-201, R.C.M. 1947. That i s often not e a s i l y done. When terms of doubtful meaning a r e used i n a holographic w i l l , a s the words "administer" and "liquify" were used i n t h i s w i l l , the courts a r e c a l l e d on t o a c t a s a medium with the s p i r i t world t o determine what meaning the deceased had i n mind when drawing the w i l l . Not an easy task by any means, nor an i n f a l l i b l e one. The holographic w i l l here i s prefaced with "The princapel reason f o r t h i s w i l l i s t o protect m y wife Antonia from harm and want when I am gone." With t h a t i n mind, and reading t h e t e x t of the w i l l a s a whole, there i s l i t t l e doubt t h a t when Hetland wrote I I I want her t o have f r e e use of and administer m y e s t a t e f o r l i f e o r a s long a s she cares to" t h a t he desired t o leave Antonia Hetland a l i f e e s t a t e . However, we do not find t h a t t h e remaining portion of ~ e t l a n d ' s w i l l disposes of the remainder a f t e r the l i f e e s t a t e terminated. It did provide t h a t i f Antonia desired t o terminate t h e l i f e e s t a t e , o r i f i t became necessary t o terminate the l i f e e s t a t e , t h a t Antonia would take one-third, daughter Anne o r her h e i r s would take one-third, and son John o r h i s h e i r s would take the remaining one-third. But, t h a t provision was applicable t o only a voluntary termination by Antonia, h i s wife. That would explain why Hetland f a i l e d t o place "or her heirs" a f t e r h i s wife's name i n paragraph three of the w i l l , but did so a f t e r h i s daughter's and son's names. Because only she, Antonia, could terminate the l i f e e s t a t e under t h i s provision, she would have t o be a l i v e t o accomplish it and hence would have no heirs. This Court finds t h i s explanation more logical than respondent's explanation t h a t i n f a i l i n g t o place "or her heirs" a f t e r h i s wife's name, Hetland showed an i n t e n t t h a t no p a r t of h i s e s t a t e should go t o Antonia's heirs. Had he so intended, he surely would have been more e x p l i c i t than he was. Since Hetland created a l i f e e s t a t e i n h i s surviving wife and f a i l e d t o dispose of the remainder a f t e r her death, i f she elected not t o terminate the l i f e e s t a t e during her lifetime, the remainder must be distributed under section 91-403, R.C.M. 1947, ~ o n t a n a ' s i n t e s t a t e succession s t a t u t e . It i s a l s o well s e t t l e d t h a t under our s t a t u t e these property i n t e r e s t s vested immediately upon the l i f e death of the t e s t a t o r , Hetland, subject t o t h e l e s t a t e i n h i s widow, and i n t h i s case, the elections she could have made under h i s w i l l . Estate of Hosova, 143 Mont. 74, 77, 387 P.2d 305; Miller v. Murphy, 119 Mont. 393, 175 P.2d 182; In r e ~ o s s e n ' s Estate, 118 Mont. 40, 162 P.2d 216. Therefore, Antonia Hetland, upon the death of her husband, received a one-third vested i n t e r e s t i n the remainder of her hus- band's e s t a t e under section 91-403(1), R.C.M. 1947, which passed t o her e s t a t e upon her death. That portion of the d i s t r i c t c o u r t ' s judgment awarding Anne Hilderman and John Hetland each one-half of the e s t a t e of Oswald B. Hetland i s reversed. This case i s remanded t o the d i s t r i c t court f o r a judgment i n conformance with t h i s opinion: awarding Antonia ~ e t l a n d ' s e s t a t e one-third; Anne Hilderman one-third; and John Hetland one-third i n t e r e s t i n the e s t a t e of Oswald B. Hetland, deceased. W e Concur: f . Chief J u s t i c e Justices. u