Opinion ID: 878568
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: the motion to remove the personal representative

Text: Section 72-1-209, MCA, provides that appellate review of all probate matters is governed by the statutes and rules applicable to the appeals to the supreme court. Rule 1(c), M.R.App.Civ.P. provides that a party may appeal from a judgment or order granting or refusing to grant, revoking or refusing to revoke, letters testamentary, or of administration ... In issuing the December 30th orders, the District Court effectively refused to revoke respondent's status as administrator of Walter Pegg's estate and letters testamentary granted to her. The orders were final and therefore appealable. This conclusion is consistent with In re Davis' Estate (1891), 11 Mont. 196, 28 P. 645, wherein this Court held that an order denying a petition to vacate an order appointing an administrator of an estate is appealable. The conclusion that the District Court's December 30th orders were final and appealable can also be deduced from reference to the laws of sister states. The language of Rule 1(c), M.R.App.Civ.P., is virtually identical to that used in Cal.Prob. Code Section 1240(a) (West 1981), which provides that [a]n appeal may be taken from an order or the refusal to make an order... [g]ranting or revoking letters testamentary or of administration. An order refusing to revoke letters testamentary is in effect an order denying a petition to remove an executor or personal representative. In re Cuneo's Estate (1963), 214 Cal. App.2d 381, 29 Cal. Rptr. 497. Such an order is deemed final and conclusive and is therefore appealable. In re Exterstein's Estate (1934), 2 Cal.2d 13, 38 P.2d 151. Even those states like Colorado, which hold that orders of a probate court are normally interlocutory and therefore not appealable, recognize that, where the petitioner is attempting to disqualify the personal representative, an order of the court granting or denying the petition is considered final and appealable. See, e.g., O'Neill v. Irwin (1966), 160 Colo. 99, 414 P.2d 122. Because the December 30th orders were final and appealable, appellants had thirty days from the notice of entry of the orders to file an appeal. Rule 5, M.R.App.Civ.P. Appellants did not follow this procedure. Instead, they simply filed another petition for removal immediately before the January 10th hearing scheduled for arguments on the proposed settlement of the wrongful death claim and apportionment of the proceeds thereof. As indicated earlier, the District Court summarily denied this petition, concluding that any further consideration of appellants' arguments was barred by, among other things, the doctrine of res judicata. Appellants' notice of appeal of all of the orders made on January 10th, including the one denying the new petition, was entered on February 2, 1983, thirty-four days after the December 30th orders were issued, or four days beyond the period prescribed by the rules for filing notice of appeal. Appellants apparently believed that by raising new grounds for removal on January 10th, i.e., that Walter's marriage to Virginia was void because of an improper divorce action involving Walter and his second wife, they could somehow perfect an appeal from an adverse ruling by the trial court regardless of any failure to file a timely appeal from the December 30th orders. As the court noted, however, appellants were in possession of all the facts which possibly would have supported the January 10th petition at the time the earlier petitions were considered and denied. It is well settled that a judgment or order is conclusive as to all matters which could have been litigated under the issues raised by the original pleadings. See Mondakota v. Reed (D.Mont. 1965), 244 F. Supp. 327, 330; Sherlock v. Greaves (1938), 106 Mont. 206, 214, 76 P.2d 87, 90. Appellants did not even offer an argument that the failure to raise the marital status question could be excused for reasons of inadvertance, excusable neglect, or newly discovered evidence. Under these circumstances, the appellants' new petition had all the appearances of an unjustified delaying tactic. Appellants should have pressed their appeal immediately after the issuance of the December 30th orders. Because they did not, we cannot, under these facts, reach the merits of appellants' arguments in support of removal of the personal representative.