Court Opinion

ID: 875578
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2013-06-04 20:05:49.630353+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T10:22:29.295760
License: Public Domain

No. 12091

             I N THE SUPREME COURT O THE STATE O MONTANA
                                    F           F

I n The M a t t e r of The E s t a t e Of:

GERTRUDE BROWN, Deceased.

HAZEL WAGY , MARILYN GRIFFITHS , ROGER BOULTER ,
DORSEY ENGMAN, DAVID C. BOULTER, and ROBERT W.
BOULTER, g r a n d n i e c e s and grandnephews of
GERTRUDE BROWN, Deceased,
                               P l a i n t i f f s and A p p e l l a n t s ,

GEORGE W. McKEAN, A d m i n i s t r a t o r of t h e E s t a t e
o f GERTRUDE BROWN, deceased, DARE B. BOULTER,
GEORGE W. BOULTER, and GRETTA G. HALLECK, nephews
and n i e c e s o f s a i d deceased, GERTRUDE BROlm, deceased.
                              Defendants and ~ e s ~ o n d h n t s .

Appeal from:          D i s t r i c t Court of t h e E i g h t e e n t h J u d i c i a l D i s t r i c t ,
                      Honorable V i c t o r H. F a l l , Judge p r e s i d i n g .

Counsel of Record:

         For A p p e l l a n t s :

                 George P. S a r s f i e l d argued, B u t t e , Montana.
                 Holland, Holland and Maxby, B u t t e , Montana.
                 D. L. Holland appeared, B u t t e , Montana.

         For Respondents:

                 B o l i n g e r and Wellcome, Bozeman, Montana.
                 G. Page Wellcome argued, Bozeman, Montana.

                                                  Submitted:         November 30, 1971

                                                   Decided :       21 Mont. 548, 382 P.2d 818, w h e r e i n w e h e l d

t h a t when t h e i n t e s t a t e l e f t n e i t h e r i s s u e , w i f e , f a t h e r , mother,

b r o t h e r o r sister s u r v i v i n g him b u t l e f t n i e c e s and nephews

t h e y i n h e r i t e d p e r c a p i t a r a t h e r t h a n p e r s t i r p e s under s e c t i o n

4 of 91-403,           R.C.M.     1947, a s n e x t o f k i n r a t h e r t h a n as r e p r e s e n -

t a t i v e s o f t h e i r d e c e a s e d p a r e n t s u n d e r s e c t i o n 3.   This r u l i n g

i s n o t r e l e v a n t i n t h e i n s t a n t c a s e b e c a u s e i n Bronson a l l

c l a i m a n t s were of an e q u a l d e g r e e , t h a t i s , nephews and n i e c e s

of t h e d e c e d e n t , and t h e r i g h t s of grandnephews and g r a n d n i e c e s

were n o t a t i s s u e .

             The d o c t r i n e o f r e p r e s e n t a t i o n i s one of n e c e s s i t y and

i s o n l y r e s o r t e d t o when t h e n e x t o f k i n a r e i n u n e q u a l d e g r e e

t o p r e v e n t t h e e x c l u s i o n of t h o s e i n a more remote d e g r e e .            19

ALR2d 1 9 4 .       I n Bronson o u r h o l d i n g r e c o g n i z e d t h a t no n e c e s s i t y

e x i s t e d f o r t h e a p p l i c a t i o n of t h e d o c t r i n e .

             I t i s conceded by t h e a p p e l l a n t t h a t i f h e and members

o f h i s c l a s s are t o t a k e a t a l l it w i l l be under s e c t i o n 91-

4 0 3 ( 3 ) , R.C.M.     1947.
        Where the right of representation is applicable it

raises the corollary issue of the level of distribution to those

who take by representation.   We focus on this corollary issue

as we deem it essential to an understanding of the descent and

distribution provided for under section 3 of 91-403, R.C.M.   1947.

        The statute which defines the right of representation

is section 91-417, R.C.M.   1947, and reads:

        "Inheritance or succession 'by right of rep-
        resentation' takes place when the descendants
        of any deceased heir take the same share or
        right in the estate of another person that
        their parents would have taken if living.
        Posthumous children are considered as living
        at the death of their parents."

        Thus we see the statute provides for representation by

any descendant of a designated heir without designating the

level of distribution contemplated.

        "When all the heirs or distributees of an estate
        are his children or his parents--persons who
        are in the first degree of kinship to him--such
        persons clearly inherit in their own right, and
        not as representing other persons who would have
        taken had they survived the intestate. These
        heirs take per capita. Similarly, brothers and
        sisters, all being descendants of the same parent
        or parents, do not raise a question of per stirpes
        distribution; they take per capita. When other
        heirs of an intestate, such as grandchildren,
        great grandchildren, nephews and nieces or cousins,
        take per capita or per stirpes is a question so
        complex as to be not easily susceptible of general-
        ization. * * * " 23 Am Jur 2d, Descent and Distri-
        bution S 64.

        This problem was met head-on in Maud v. Catherwood, 67

C.A.2d 636, 155 P.2d 111, where all seven of a decedent's

children were predeceased at the time as of which the heirs

were to be determined and four left surviving descendants.    It

was held that one great grandchild, the sole descendant of one
c h i l d r e c e i v e d o n e - q u a r t e r o f t h e e s t a t e ; one g r a n d c h i l d , t h e

s o l e d e s c e n d a n t of a n o t h e r , r e c e i v e d o n e - q u a r t e r ; two grand-

c h i l d r e n , o n l y d e s c e n d a n t s o f a t h i r d c h i l d , r e c e i v e d one-eighth

e a c h ; and one g r a n d c h i l d and one g r e a t g r a n d c h i l d , t h e o n l y

d e s c e n d a n t s of a f o u r t h c h i l d , r e c e i v e d one-eighth e a c h , t h e

c h i l d r e n of t h e d e c e d e n t having been determined a s t h e l e v e l o f

d i s t r i b u t i o n by r e p r e s e n t a t i o n .

              The c o u r t i n r e a c h i n g i t s h o l d i n g p o i n t e d o u t t h a t "Death

and b i r t h i n v a r y i n g numbers may change t h e amount of t h e s h a r e

t o which a r e l a t i v e may succeed t o an e s t a t e .                   I n view o f t h e

p o s s i b i l i t y o f a seeming u n f a i r n e s s , under any r u l e t h e r e s h o u l d

b e less claim of i n j u s t i c e i f there i s followed t h e r e q u i r e m e n t

t h a t t h e r i g h t of i n h e r i t a n c e of a r e p r e s e n t a t i v e d e s c e n d a n t

s h o u l d be f i x e d by r e f e r e n c e t o t h e f i r s t g e n e r a t i o n common t o

each as t h e c r i t e r i o n t o d e t e r m i n e t h e d e g r e e o f r e l a t i o n s h i p

of t h e subsequent r e l a t i v e s i n t h e d e s c e n d i n g l i n e . "           Maud v.

Catherwood, s u p r a .

              Here we n o t e t h e a p p l i c a b l e s t a t u t e d o e s j u s t t h a t .           It

c l a s s i f i e s t h e common a n c e s t o r a s t h e b r o t h e r o r s i s t e r o f t h e

d e s c e n d a n t and t h e l e v e l o f d i s t r i b u t i o n by r e p r e s e n t a t i o n t o

be t h e c h i l d r e n of such deceased b r o t h e r and s i s t e r .                  Thus i n

t h i s case t h e d e s c e n d a n t s o f t h e deceased h e i r , t h e s i s t e r of

G e r t r u d e Brown, t a k e t h e s h a r e t h e i r p a r e n t would have t a k e n i f

living.         T h i s would b e a p e r c a p i t a s h a r e t o t h e c h i l d r e n of t h e

deceased sister and p e r s t i r p e s t o t h e c h i l d r e n of p r e d e c e a s e d

c h i l d r e n of t h e sister.
        The presiding district judge in this matter having

retired, the cause is reversed and remanded to the court of the

eighteenth judicial district for entry of an order and decree

consistent with this hol

  ~ s s o c i a uJustices