Court Opinion

ID: 9930511
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-02-07 00:05:20.78533+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T11:19:02.771295
License: Public Domain

1,-) ORIGINAL                                            02/06/2024

           IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA
                                                                                            Case Number: DA 23-0031

                                        DA 23-0031

 IN THE MATTER OF THE ESTATE OF:

 IAN RAY ELLIOT,                                                     ORDER

              Deceased.                                                                        .41%
                                                                                 A „:   ,    „..„)

                                                                              FEB - 6          _
                                                                            Bowen Grc E-riwr-ncl
                                                                                                      —at
       Appellants Jenny Jing, Alice Carpenter, and Mike Bolenbaugh (collectively referred
to as "Jing”) petition this Court for rehearing of its December 19, 2023 Opinion affirming
the District Court's denial of their M. R. Civ. P. 60(b) motion in the probate of the Estate
of Ian Ray Elliott. Appellees Joseph Womack and Cindy Elliott oppose the petition.
       We granted Jing an extension of time until January 16, 2024, to file her petition for
rehearing. Womack points out that the petition was not filed until January 18, after
remittitur was issued. The Court accepted the petition after learning from the Clerk that
FedEx had delayed in delivering it beyond the guaranteed delivery date. Though Womack
correctly observes that the Court did not first recall its remittitur, we do so here nunc pro
tunc and consider Jing's petition.
       This Court will consider a petition for rehearing only upon the following grounds:
       (i) That it overlooked some fact material to the decision;
       (ii) That it overlooked some question presented by counsel that would have proven
decisive to the case; or
       (iii) That its decision conflicts with a statute or controlling decision not addressed
by the supreme court.
M. R. App. P. 20(1)(a).
       Jing raises a host of arguments in their petition. Again, as they did on appeal, Jing
raises a number of points attempting to relitigate matters decided in In re Estate of Elliot,
No. DA 21-0343, 2022 MT 91N, ¶ 3, 2022 Mont. LEXIS 447 (Estate of Elliot II). As we
noted in the Opinion, Jing's invitation to "reconsider" matters decided in Estate ofElliot II
is not properly before us in this appeal. Opinion, ¶ 16. Jing contends that the District Court
violated Jenny's First Amendment rights and their right to a jury trial when it appointed
Andrew Billstein as special administrator of Ian's estate, adding that the hearing also was
to consider the veracity of Womack's claim that Ian did not leave a signed will. However,
Jing did not appeal the District Court's order appointing Billstein as the special
administrator of Ian's estate, and we did not consider that order in their appeal of the Rule
60(b) ruling. Opinion, ¶ 2. Further, "[Necathe M. R. App. P. 20(1)(a) requires petitkiners
to identify or establish, among other things, that this Court 'overlooked some question
presented by counsel that would have proven decisive to the case[,]' it is manifest that new
arguments cannot be raised in a petition for rehearing." In re Conservatorship of H.D.K,
S. Ct. No. DA 21-0011, 2021 Mont. LEXIS 910, (Or. Nov. 9, 2021).
       Jing also reasserts their arguments that Womack did not have standing to seek
appointment of a special administrator and that he committed a fraud upon the court. But
we addressed both arguments in our Opinion (¶ 7 n.4, TT 14-16), and Jing has not
demonstrated that the Court overlooked a question they presented that would have proven
decisive to the case. Womack did not have to show that he was "injured" by loans made
from StarFire to Ian's estate to qualify as an interested person for purposes of seeking
                                                                                                 ,
supervised administration. Though Jing cites additional authority for their arguments, none
of the cited cases constitutes a "controlling decision" that the Court overlooked, as we
agreed with the District Court that Womack qualified as a "creditor" under the definition
of "interested person." Opinion, ¶ 7 n.4.
       We have considered the remainder of Jing's arguments and determine that they do
not raise appropriate grounds for rehearing under M. R. App. P. 20(1)(a). )

                                              2
       IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the petition for rehearing is DENIED.
Remittitur shall issue forthwith.
       The Clerk is directed to provide a copy of this Order to all parties and counsel of
record.
       DATED this 40      day of February, 2024.

                                                                  Justices

Justice Ingrid Gustafson recused herself from participating in this appeal.

                                             3