Opinion ID: 1169146
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Appealable judgments and orders.

Text:  An appeal may be taken to the district court of the county from a judgment, or order of the magistrate's division of the district court in probate matters: 1. Granting, refusing or revoking, or refusing to revoke, letters testamentary, or of administration, or of guardianship. 2. Admitting, or refusing to admit, a will to probate. 3. Against or in favor of the validity of a will, or revoking or refusing to revoke the probate thereof. 4. Against or in favor of setting apart property, or making an allowance for a widow or child. 5. Against or in favor of directing the partition, lease, mortgage, sale or conveyance of real property. 6. Settling an account of an executor, administrator or guardian. 7. Refusing, allowing or directing the distribution or partition of an estate, or any part thereof, or the payment of a debt, claim, legacy or distributive share. 8. Confirming report of appraiser setting apart the homestead. Keeven argues that the questions raised in his appeal of the magistrate's order deal with issues encompassed in subsections 3, 4 and 7 of this statute. The district court disagreed, noting that the only exception which vaguely matches any of the issues decided by the magistrate is exception No. 7, which speaks of the `distribution or partition of an estate, or any part thereof, or the payment of a debt, claim, legacy or distributive share.' However, the court said, since the personal representative's administration of the estate does not constitute a distribution of the estate, subsection 7 is inapplicable. We agree with the district court that subsection 7 is inapplicable, and based on the plain language of subsection 4, it too appears inapplicable. Only subsection 3 provides a colorable basis on which Keeven can appeal. In Estate of Pierce, 95 Idaho 625, 515 P.2d 1017 (1973), this Court noted that By the enactment of I.C. § 17-201, the legislature intended that certain actions taken by the courts handling the settlement of decedent's estate were of such material consequence that it was essential the decisions reached by the courts in those areas should be subject to review by a higher court regardless of whether such decisions were `final judgments' as provided by I.C. § 13-201. Id. at 626, 515 P.2d at 1018. In Pierce, the Court held that an order of intestacy and appointment of an administrator was appealable under I.C. § 17-201(1) even though not a final judgment. See also, Estate of Spencer, 106 Idaho 316, 318, 678 P.2d 108, 110 (Ct.App. 1984), (a more literal approach to subsection 6 of I.C. § 17-201 was followed).