Opinion ID: 875953
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: The Court d e c l i n e s t o i s s u e a w r i t of mandate.

Text: I1 2. The a f f i d a v i t s of d i s q u a l i f i c a t i o n a r e ordered s t r i c k e n . ( R e l a t o r f i l e d a n o t i c e of a p p e a l and t h e r e - a f t e r f i l e d t h e a f f i d a v i t s of d i s q u a l i f i c a t i o n . Without extended d i s c u s s i o n h e r e t h i s p r a c t i c e cannot be approved.) 3. Both c a s e s h e r e t o f o r e r e f e r r e d t o a r e con- s o l i d a t e d on a p p e a l f o r b r i e f i n g and argument. 4. W i l l i s M. IYlcI and made a respondent i n t h i s proceeding. 5. The d i s t r i c t c o u r t i s d i r e c t e d t o e n t e r an o r d e r suspending t h e e x e c u t o r ' s powers u n t i l t h e f u r t h e r o r d e r of t h e c o u r t . 6. The d i s t r i c t c o u r t , under t h e emergency power given i n s e c t i o n 91A-3-614, R.C.M. 1947, s h a l l a p p o i n t a s p e c i a l a d m i n i s t r a t o r whose powers s h a l l be l i m i t e d t o c o n s e r v a t i o n of t h e e s t a t e u n t i l f i n a l d i s p o s i t i o n of t h e appeal. 7. Since W i l l i s M. FfcKeon was named e x e c u t o r i n t h e w i l l a d m i t t e d t o p r o b a t e b u t now under a p p e a l , i n accord w i t h t h e i n t e n t of s e c t i o n 91A-3-615, R.C.M. 1947, t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t i s d i r e c t e d t o name him s p e c i a l a d m i n i s t r a t o r w i t h l i m i t e d powers. 8. To e x p e d i t e t h e a p p e a l , s i n c e t r a n s c r i p t s of t h e evidence p r e s e n t e d a t t h e h e a r i n g on admission of t h e a l l e g e d w i l l s a r e a v a i l a b l e t h e time f o r b r i e f i n g i s shortened a s f o l l o w s : a ) A p p e l l a n t ' s b r i e f t o be served and f i l e d w i t h i n 20 days from d a t e of t h i s o r d e r . b ) ~ e s p o n d e n t ' sb r i e f t o b e served and f i l e d w i t h i n 20 days from s e r v i c e of a p p e l l a n t ' s b r i e f . c ) A p p e l l a n t ' s r e p l y b r i e f t o then be s e r v e d and f i l e d w i t h i n 7 days. d ) The c a u s e w i l l be s e t f o r argument on t h e September Calendar of t h i s Court.  The m a t t e r involved h e r e i s a d e t e r m i n a t i o n of whether t h e f i r s t w i l l of Arthur N. Fender, executed on October 1 2 , 1972 and naming Willis McKeon a s e x e c u t o r , o r t h e second w i l l executed March 1 8 , 1975, naming Louis Herdegen a s e x e c u t o r , be a d m i t t e d t o probate. The r e c o r d r e v e a l s t h e s e f a c t s : O March 25, 1975, Arthur N. Fender d i e d a t t h e r a n c h of n h i s nephew Louis Herdegen. Herdegen i s t h e o n l y h e i r l i v i n g i n Montana and had helped loolc a f t e r h i s u n c l e d u r i n g h i s l a s t i l l n e s s . On March 2 7 , 1975, Herdegen f i l e d a p e t i t i o n f o r t h e p r o b a t e of a w i l l executed by h i s u n c l e on March 1 8 , 1975, r e q u e s t i n g t h a t he be named e x e c u t o r . T h i s w i l l was f i l e d i n t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t of t h e s e v e n t e e n t h j u d i c i a l d i s t r i c t , P h i l l i p s County and given c a u s e No. 2759. On t h e f o l l o w i n g d a y , March 28, 1975, W i l l i s McKeon, an a t t o r n e y i n M a l t a , f i l e d i n t h e same c o u r t a p e t i t i o n f o r p r o b a t e o f w i l l o f A. N . F e n d e r , e x e c u t e d on October 1 2 , 1972, and r e q u e s t i n g t h a t h e be a p p o i n t e d e x e c u t o r . That p e t i t i o n w a s g i v e n c a u s e No. 2790. The two w i l l s were i d e n t i c a l a s t o t h e d i s p o s i t i v e provisions, t h e only difference being t h e executor named. L o u i s Herdegen f i l e d o b j e c t i o n s t o t h e p r o b a t e of t h e w i l l o f f e r e d by F J i l l i s McKeon on t h e grounds t h a t i t was n o t t h e d e c e d e n t ' s l a s t w i l l , d e c e d e n t having e x e c u t e d a w i l l s u b s e q u e n t t o t h e one o f f e r e d by I4cKeon. McKeon f i l e d o b j e c t i o n s t o t h e p r o b a t e of t h e w i l l o f f e r e d by Herdegen on t h e grounds t h a t de- c e d e n t a c t e d under d u r e s s , menace, f r a u d o r undue i n f l u e n c e a t t h e t i m e o f t h e e x e c u t i o n o f t h e w i l l and f u r t h e r upon t h e grounds t h a t t h e i n s t r u m e n t w a s n o t d u l y o r p r o p e r l y executed and a t t e s t e d a s r e q u i r e d by t h e laws of Montana. T h e r e a f t e r Herdegen f i l e d a motion t o d i s m i s s t h e p u r - was p o r t e d c o n t e s t of t h e w i l l which h e l o f f e r i n g f o r p r o b a t e on t h e 11 grounds t h a t McKeon was n o t a p e r s o n i n t e r e s t e d  w i t h i n t h e meaning o f s e c t i o n 91-810, R.C.M. 1947, and t h e r e f o r e l a c k e d s t a n d i n g t o c o n t e s t such w i l l . The d i s t r i c t c o u r t n e v e r r u l e d on t h i s motion, b u t proceeded t o s e t b o t h p e t i t i o n s f o r a h e a r i n g on May 1 2 , 1975. Testimony was t a k e n and b r i e f s were f i l e d . IslcKeon was a l l o w e d t o a t t a c k t h e v a l i d i t y o f t h e w i l l o f f e r e d by Herdegen. A t t h e hearing t e s t i m o n y was t a k e n from f i v e w i t n e s s e s , i n c l u d i n g McKeon, which was reduced t o w r i t i n g and made p a r t o f t h e c o u r t r e c o r d . On June 1 9 , 1975, t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t judge i s s u e d a n o r d e r denying t h e p r o b a t e o f t h e L a s t W i l l and Testament o f A r t h u r N . Fender, o f f e r e d by Herdegen and a d m i t t e d t h e w i l l o f f e r e d by McKeon, d a t e d October 1 2 , 1972. The t r i a l c o u r t , a f t e r Herdegen a p p e a l e d t o t h i s Court f i l e d a memorandum d i r e c t e d t o t h i s Court f o r c o n s i d e r a t i o n i n deciding t h e cause. The memorandum d o e s n o t amount t o f i n d i n g s and w i l l n o t be c o n s i d e r e d . - 4 - Notices of a p p e a l were f i l e d June 2 3 , 1975 of t h e o r d e r denying p r o b a t e of t h e w i l l o f f e r e d by Herdegen, and t h e o r d e r admit- t i n g t h e w i l l of October 1 2 , 1972, t o p r o b a t e and appointment of W i l l i s McKeon a s e x e c u t o r . S e v e r a l i s s u e s were s e t f o r t h and argued b u t we f i n d t h e c o n t r o l l i n g i s s u e t o be t h e f a i l u r e of t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t t o r u l e on t h e Ilerdegen motion t o d i s m i s s on t h e b a s i s of t h e f a c t W i l l i s NcKeon had no s t a n d i n g t o appear and c o n t e s t t h e w i l l o f f e r e d by Herdegen. This i s s u e was decided by t h i s Court i n H i l l v. D i s t r i c t Court, 126 Mont. 1, 4 , 5 , 242 P.2d 850. I n H i l l a w i l l was executed naming H i l l t h e e x e c u t o r . A second c o d i c i l named him e x e c u t o r , b u t under a t h i r d c o d i c i l t o t h e w i l l he was removed a s e x e c u t o r and one J . W. Rees was named s o l e e x e c u t o r . H i l l objected t o and opposed ~ e e s 'p e t i t i o n f o r p r o b a t e of t h e w i l l and t h e t h i r d c o d i c i l , c l a i m i n g t h a t t h e t e s t a t r i x wa,s incompetent when s h e made t h e t h i r d c o d i c i l naming Rees e x e c u t o r . Rees demurred t o H i l l ' s o b j e c t i o n s and t h e demurrer was s u s t a i n e d f o r t h e r e a s o n t h a t H i l l was n o t a person i n t e r e s t e d  i n t h e e s t a t e having l e g a l c a p a c i t y t o c o n t e s t o r oppose t h e p r o b a t e . H i l l appealed. - T h i s Court i n H i l l c i t e d w i t h a p p r o v a l 57 Am.Jur., Wills, ! 798, pp. j 541, 542: l' Under s t a t u t e s which permit t h e c o n t e s t of w i l l s by persons i n t e r e s t e d o r c l a i m i n g t o b e i n t e r e s t e d i n t h e decedent's e s t a t e , the general r u l e i s t h a t a contestant must have some pecuniary o r b e n e f i c i a l i n t e r e s t i n t h e e s t a t e of t h e decedent t h a t i s d e t r i m e n t a l l y a f f e c t e d by t h e w i l l . Although t h e r i g h t t o maintain a w i l l c o n t e s t does n o t depend upon t h e e x t e n t o r p r o p o r t i o n of t h e c o n t e s t a n t ' s share i n the decedent's e s t a t e , o r t h e amount of t h e d e t r i m e n t s u f f e r e d by t h e c o n t e s t a n t , i t does depend upon t h e f a c t t h a t t h e c o n t e s t a n t may b e deprived by t h e w i l l of some i n t e r e s t of pecuniary v a l u e , worth, advantage, o r use i n t h e e s t a t e . The mere circum- s t a n c e t h a t a person may b e i n t e r e s t e d i n t h e a d m i n i s t r a - t i o n , d i s t r i b u t i o n , o r p a r t i t i o n of an e s t a t e i s n o t s u f f i c i e n t i f he w i l l n o t s u f f e r any d e t r i m e n t from t h e w i l l . As s t a t e d , an i n t e r e s t i n t h e p r o p e r t y of t h e e s t a t e d e t r i m e n t a l l y a f f e c t e d by t h e w i l l i s t h e founda- t i o n of t h e r i g h t t o c o n t e s t i t .  F u r t h e r i n H i l l , t h e Court c i t e d I n Re ~ ' ~ r i e n E s t a t e , ' 11 1 Sometimes i t happens t h a t a l a t e r w i l l makes no change a t a l l i n t h e d i s p o s i t i o n of t h e t e s t a t o r ' s e s t a t e , b u t merely nominates a d i f f e r e n t e x e c u t o r . I n such a c a s e , why should t h e e s t a t e be burdened by w i l l c o n t e s t proceedings f o r t h e s o l e purpose of determining which of t h e two r i v a l c l a i m a n t s should be permitted t o a c t a s executor? . - - and t h e b e t t e r r e a s.o n i n g f a. , r t h e r u l e t h a t a . . vo ..... '1t i s o u r c o n c l u s i o n t h a t ;k 9;  t h e weight of a u t h o r i t y - c o n t e s t cannot be i n i t i a t e d by an e x e c u ~ o rnamed i n a T - .. p r i o r w i l l . ' (Emphasis s u p p l i e d ) . I n c o n c l u s i o n t h e Court i n -7 i l l H stated: