Opinion ID: 883751
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 19

Heading: cross-appeal issue ii annuity beneficiary

Text: Michelle argues that Danny should be the surviving beneficiary of Daniel's annuity, and that the trial court should have ordered that designation to avoid potential future litigation because Daniel's mother, the named surviving beneficiary, and Michelle do not get along. Therefore, according to Michelle, Danny may not receive the money to which he is entitled. Daniel contends that he is entitled to designate a personal representative of his choice to administer his annuity, and that, since there is no actual controversy here, Michelle cannot request relief for a future harm which possibly may occur. We agree with Daniel. The dispensation of Daniel's estate and the payment of child support from his estate are not issues before this Court because Daniel is still alive. No actual case or controversy is presented. Therefore we do not have a justiciable controversy over which the judicial power to determine real controversies may be exercised. Hardy v. Krutzfeldt (1983), 206 Mont. 521, 525, 672 P.2d 274, 276. Absent a real controversy, this Court does not have the power to address the issue presented. Hardy, 672 P.2d at 276. Nor was this issue properly before the District Court. Accordingly, it will not be considered further.