No. 13088
I N THE SUPREME C U T O THE STATE O M N A A OR F F OTN 1975
STATE O M N A A ex r e 1 LOUIS HERDEGEN, F OTN
Relator,
DISTRICT C U T O THE SEVENTEENTH JUDICIAL OR F DISTRICT OF THE STATE O M N A A I N AND F OTN, FOR THE C U T O PHILLIPS AND T E HONORABLE O NY F H T O A DIGNAN, PRESIDING J U D G E THEREOF, HMS
Respondents. ORIGINAL PROCEEDING:
Counsel of Record :
For R e l a t o r :
Burns, Solem & Mackenzie, Chinook, Montana William M. Solem argued and S t u a r t C. Mackenzie appeared, Chinook, Montana
For Respondents:
Granat and Cole, Malta, Montana Stephen Granat argued, Malta, Montana
Submitted: September 24, 1975
Decided : ~ C T I7 -q ( 2 7 .- , I , , *
Filed : . kt
No. 13087
I N THE SUPREME COURT O THE STATE O M N A A F F OTN
I n t h e Matter of t h e E s t a t e of A T U N. FENDER RH R
LOUIS HERDEGEN,
Appellant, WILLIS McKEON, Executor,
Respondent.
Appeal from: D i s t r i c t Court of t h e Seventeenth J u d i c i a l D i s t r i c t , Honorable Thomas Dignan, Judge p r e s i d i n g .
Counsel of Record :
For Appellant :
Burns, Solem and Mackenzie, Chinook, Montana William Solem argued, and S t u a r t C. Mackenzie appeared, Chinook, Montana
For Respondent:
Granat and Cole, Malta, Montana Stephen Granat argued, Malta, Montana
Submitted: September 24, 1975
~ e c i d e d : QCP 1-7 i g d ~ Filed: P i f d:L
PER CURIAM: W a r e h e r e c o n s i d e r i n g two c a s e s , b o t h concerning e ehe p r o b a t e of t h e e s t a t e of Arthur N . Fender, deceased. No.
13087 i s e n t i t l e d "Louis Herdegen, Appellant v. Willis EJIcI<eon, Executor, ~ e s p o n d e n t "which i s an a p p e a l from t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t
of P h i l l i p s County. No. 13088 i s e n t i t l e d " S t a t e of Montana ex r e l . Louis Herdegen, R e l a t o r , v s . D i s t r i c t Court of t h e Seventeenth
J u d i c i a l D i s t r i c t of t h e S t a t e of Montana, I n and For t h e County of P h i l l i p s and t h e Honorable Thomas Dignan, P r e s i d i n g Judge
T h e r e o f , Respondent", an o r i g i n a l proceeding i n mandamus concerning t h e p r o b a t e of t h e w i l l t o r e q u i r e t h e d i s t r i c t judge t o honor an a f f i d a v i t of d i s q u a l i f i c a t i o n and c a l l i n a n o t h e r judge and t o
s t a y t h e proceedings i n d i s t r i c t c o u r t c a u s e No. 2790, P h i l l i p s County, pending i n t h a t c o u r t . T h i s Court i n Cause No. 13088 on J u l y 1 8 , 1975, i s s u e d t h i s ord.er: 11 Counsel was heard ex p a r t e and t h e r e a f t e r an o r d e r was i s s u e d f o r an a d v e r s a r y h e a r i n g . A t t h e h e a r i n g Executor McKeon appeared by b r i e f and h i s c o u n s e l argued. Such h e a r i n g has been had, b r i e f s f i l e d by r e s p e c t i v e c o u n s e l who a l s o argued, t h e d i s t r i c t judge has f i l e d a memorandum, t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t f i l e s examined, and t h e m a t t e r taken under advisement. If There a r e two e s t a t e proceedings e n t i t l e d a l i k e , one b e i n g c a u s e 2789, t h e o t h e r 2790; we apply t h i s order t o both cases. 11 Having now considered t h e m a t t e r s involved i t a p p e a r s t h a t no purpose would be served by a r e c i t a t i o n of t h e f a c t s , t h e m a t t e r i s on a p p e a l and f o r now i t i s n e c e s s a r y t o p r e s e r v e t h e s t a t u s quo a s b e s t t h a t can be done and e x p e d i t e t h e a p p e a l proceedings so a f i n a l d e c i s i o n can be had. To t h i s end t h e Court ORDERS: "I. The Court d e c l i n e s t o i s s u e a w r i t of mandate. I1 2. The a f f i d a v i t s of d i s q u a l i f i c a t i o n a r e ordered s t r i c k e n . ( R e l a t o r f i l e d a n o t i c e of a p p e a l and t h e r e - a f t e r f i l e d t h e a f f i d a v i t s of d i s q u a l i f i c a t i o n . Without extended d i s c u s s i o n h e r e t h i s p r a c t i c e cannot be approved.) "3. Both c a s e s h e r e t o f o r e r e f e r r e d t o a r e con- s o l i d a t e d on a p p e a l f o r b r i e f i n g and argument.
"4. W i l l i s M. IYlcI<eon, a s e x e c u t o r , i s named and made a respondent i n t h i s proceeding. "5. The d i s t r i c t c o u r t i s d i r e c t e d t o e n t e r an o r d e r suspending t h e e x e c u t o r ' s powers u n t i l t h e f u r t h e r o r d e r of t h e c o u r t .
"6. The d i s t r i c t c o u r t , under t h e emergency power given i n s e c t i o n 91A-3-614, R.C.M. 1947, s h a l l a p p o i n t a s p e c i a l a d m i n i s t r a t o r whose powers s h a l l be l i m i t e d t o c o n s e r v a t i o n of t h e e s t a t e u n t i l f i n a l d i s p o s i t i o n of t h e appeal. "7. Since W i l l i s M. FfcKeon was named e x e c u t o r i n t h e w i l l a d m i t t e d t o p r o b a t e b u t now under a p p e a l , i n accord w i t h t h e i n t e n t of s e c t i o n 91A-3-615, R.C.M. 1947, t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t i s d i r e c t e d t o name him s p e c i a l a d m i n i s t r a t o r w i t h l i m i t e d powers.
"8. To e x p e d i t e t h e a p p e a l , s i n c e t r a n s c r i p t s of t h e evidence p r e s e n t e d a t t h e h e a r i n g on admission of t h e a l l e g e d w i l l s a r e a v a i l a b l e t h e time f o r b r i e f i n g i s shortened a s f o l l o w s :
a ) A p p e l l a n t ' s b r i e f t o be served and f i l e d w i t h i n 20 days from d a t e of t h i s o r d e r .
b ) ~ e s p o n d e n t ' sb r i e f t o b e served and f i l e d w i t h i n 20 days from s e r v i c e of a p p e l l a n t ' s b r i e f .
c ) A p p e l l a n t ' s r e p l y b r i e f t o then be s e r v e d and f i l e d w i t h i n 7 days.
d ) The c a u s e w i l l be s e t f o r argument on t h e September Calendar of t h i s Court. "
The m a t t e r involved h e r e i s a d e t e r m i n a t i o n of whether t h e f i r s t w i l l of Arthur N. Fender, executed on October 1 2 , 1972
and naming Willis McKeon a s e x e c u t o r , o r t h e second w i l l executed March 1 8 , 1975, naming Louis Herdegen a s e x e c u t o r , be a d m i t t e d t o probate. The r e c o r d r e v e a l s t h e s e f a c t s :
O March 25, 1975, Arthur N. Fender d i e d a t t h e r a n c h of n
h i s nephew Louis Herdegen. Herdegen i s t h e o n l y h e i r l i v i n g i n Montana and had helped loolc a f t e r h i s u n c l e d u r i n g h i s l a s t i l l n e s s . On March 2 7 , 1975, Herdegen f i l e d a p e t i t i o n f o r t h e p r o b a t e of
a w i l l executed by h i s u n c l e on March 1 8 , 1975, r e q u e s t i n g t h a t he be named e x e c u t o r . T h i s w i l l was f i l e d i n t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t of t h e s e v e n t e e n t h j u d i c i a l d i s t r i c t , P h i l l i p s County and given c a u s e
No. 2759.
On t h e f o l l o w i n g d a y , March 28, 1975, W i l l i s McKeon, an a t t o r n e y i n M a l t a , f i l e d i n t h e same c o u r t a p e t i t i o n f o r p r o b a t e o f w i l l o f A. N . F e n d e r , e x e c u t e d on October 1 2 , 1972, and r e q u e s t i n g t h a t h e be a p p o i n t e d e x e c u t o r . That p e t i t i o n w a s g i v e n c a u s e No. 2790. The two w i l l s were i d e n t i c a l a s t o t h e d i s p o s i t i v e provisions, t h e only difference being t h e executor named. L o u i s Herdegen f i l e d o b j e c t i o n s t o t h e p r o b a t e of t h e w i l l o f f e r e d by F J i l l i s McKeon on t h e grounds t h a t i t was n o t t h e d e c e d e n t ' s l a s t w i l l , d e c e d e n t having e x e c u t e d a w i l l s u b s e q u e n t t o t h e one o f f e r e d by I4cKeon. McKeon f i l e d o b j e c t i o n s t o t h e p r o b a t e of t h e w i l l o f f e r e d by Herdegen on t h e grounds t h a t de- c e d e n t a c t e d under d u r e s s , menace, f r a u d o r undue i n f l u e n c e a t t h e t i m e o f t h e e x e c u t i o n o f t h e w i l l and f u r t h e r upon t h e grounds t h a t t h e i n s t r u m e n t w a s n o t d u l y o r p r o p e r l y executed and a t t e s t e d a s r e q u i r e d by t h e laws of Montana. T h e r e a f t e r Herdegen f i l e d a motion t o d i s m i s s t h e p u r - was p o r t e d c o n t e s t of t h e w i l l which h e l o f f e r i n g f o r p r o b a t e on t h e 11 grounds t h a t McKeon was n o t a p e r s o n i n t e r e s t e d " w i t h i n t h e meaning o f s e c t i o n 91-810, R.C.M. 1947, and t h e r e f o r e l a c k e d s t a n d i n g t o c o n t e s t such w i l l . The d i s t r i c t c o u r t n e v e r r u l e d on t h i s motion, b u t proceeded t o s e t b o t h p e t i t i o n s f o r a h e a r i n g on May 1 2 , 1975. Testimony was t a k e n and b r i e f s were f i l e d . IslcKeon was a l l o w e d t o a t t a c k t h e v a l i d i t y o f t h e w i l l o f f e r e d by Herdegen. A t t h e hearing t e s t i m o n y was t a k e n from f i v e w i t n e s s e s , i n c l u d i n g McKeon, which was reduced t o w r i t i n g and made p a r t o f t h e c o u r t r e c o r d . On June 1 9 , 1975, t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t judge i s s u e d a n
o r d e r denying t h e p r o b a t e o f t h e L a s t W i l l and Testament o f A r t h u r N . Fender, o f f e r e d by Herdegen and a d m i t t e d t h e w i l l o f f e r e d by
McKeon, d a t e d October 1 2 , 1972. The t r i a l c o u r t , a f t e r Herdegen a p p e a l e d t o t h i s Court f i l e d a memorandum d i r e c t e d t o t h i s Court f o r c o n s i d e r a t i o n i n deciding t h e cause. The memorandum d o e s n o t amount t o f i n d i n g s and w i l l n o t be c o n s i d e r e d . - 4 -
Notices of a p p e a l were f i l e d June 2 3 , 1975 of t h e o r d e r denying p r o b a t e of t h e w i l l o f f e r e d by Herdegen, and t h e o r d e r admit-
t i n g t h e w i l l of October 1 2 , 1972, t o p r o b a t e and appointment of W i l l i s McKeon a s e x e c u t o r . S e v e r a l i s s u e s were s e t f o r t h and argued b u t we f i n d t h e c o n t r o l l i n g i s s u e t o be t h e f a i l u r e of t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t t o r u l e on t h e Ilerdegen motion t o d i s m i s s on t h e b a s i s of t h e f a c t W i l l i s NcKeon had no s t a n d i n g t o appear and c o n t e s t t h e w i l l o f f e r e d by Herdegen. This i s s u e was decided by t h i s Court i n H i l l v. D i s t r i c t Court, 126 Mont. 1, 4 , 5 , 242 P.2d 850. I n H i l l a w i l l was executed naming H i l l t h e e x e c u t o r . A second c o d i c i l named him e x e c u t o r , b u t under a t h i r d c o d i c i l t o t h e w i l l he was removed a s e x e c u t o r and one J . W. Rees was named s o l e e x e c u t o r . H i l l objected t o and opposed ~ e e s 'p e t i t i o n f o r p r o b a t e of t h e w i l l and t h e t h i r d c o d i c i l , c l a i m i n g t h a t t h e t e s t a t r i x wa,s incompetent when s h e made t h e t h i r d c o d i c i l naming Rees e x e c u t o r . Rees demurred t o H i l l ' s o b j e c t i o n s and t h e demurrer was s u s t a i n e d f o r t h e r e a s o n t h a t H i l l was n o t a "person i n t e r e s t e d " i n t h e e s t a t e having l e g a l c a p a c i t y t o c o n t e s t o r oppose t h e p r o b a t e . H i l l appealed.
- T h i s Court i n H i l l c i t e d w i t h a p p r o v a l 57 Am.Jur., Wills, ! 798, pp. j 541, 542: l' Under s t a t u t e s which permit t h e c o n t e s t of w i l l s by persons i n t e r e s t e d o r c l a i m i n g t o b e i n t e r e s t e d i n t h e decedent's e s t a t e , the general r u l e i s t h a t a contestant must have some pecuniary o r b e n e f i c i a l i n t e r e s t i n t h e e s t a t e of t h e decedent t h a t i s d e t r i m e n t a l l y a f f e c t e d by t h e w i l l . Although t h e r i g h t t o maintain a w i l l c o n t e s t does n o t depend upon t h e e x t e n t o r p r o p o r t i o n of t h e c o n t e s t a n t ' s share i n the decedent's e s t a t e , o r t h e amount of t h e d e t r i m e n t s u f f e r e d by t h e c o n t e s t a n t , i t does depend upon t h e f a c t t h a t t h e c o n t e s t a n t may b e deprived by t h e w i l l of some i n t e r e s t of pecuniary v a l u e , worth, advantage, o r use i n t h e e s t a t e . The mere circum- s t a n c e t h a t a person may b e i n t e r e s t e d i n t h e a d m i n i s t r a - t i o n , d i s t r i b u t i o n , o r p a r t i t i o n of an e s t a t e i s n o t s u f f i c i e n t i f he w i l l n o t s u f f e r any d e t r i m e n t from t h e w i l l . As s t a t e d , an i n t e r e s t i n t h e p r o p e r t y of t h e e s t a t e d e t r i m e n t a l l y a f f e c t e d by t h e w i l l i s t h e founda- t i o n of t h e r i g h t t o c o n t e s t i t . "
F u r t h e r i n H i l l , t h e Court c i t e d I n Re ~ ' ~ r i e n E s t a t e , '
2) Q u e s t i o r s of f a c t were r a i s e d r e g a r d i n g t h e a t t e s t a -t i o n of t h e Herdegen w i l l by t h e c o n t e s t .
3) A p r o p e r l y f i l e d motion t o d i s m i s s , t o g e t h e r w i t h s u p p o r t i n g memorandums was f i l e d , and n o t a c t e d on.
4) McKeon was a l l o w e d t o p a r t i c i p a t e i n t h e p r o c e e d i n g s .
R e g a r d l e s s o f what t h e May 1 2 , 1975 h e a r i n g was c a l l e d , i t was i n r e a l i t y a w i l l c o n t e s t w i t h o u t p r o p e r p r o c e d u r e s b e i n g followed. Herdegen w a s d e n i e d t h e r i g h t t o have t h e i s s u e s r a i s e d
by i4cKeon t r i e d b e f o r e a j u r y . The o r d e r of t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t a d m i t t i n g t o p r o b a t e t h e
L a s t W i l l and Testament o f A r t h u r N. F e n d e r , d a t e d October 1 2 , 1972, and a p p o i n t i n g W i l l i s 14. TMcKeon, e x e c u t o r , i s set a s i d e and v a c a t e d ,
t o g e t h e r w i t h t h e memorandum o f t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t c o v e r i n g r e a s o n s f o r n o t a d m i t t i n g t h e second w i l l .
I t i s o r d e r e d t h a t t h e L a s t W i l l and Testament o f A r t h u r
1 . F e n d e r , d a t e d ?.larch 1 8 , 1975, a p p o i n t i n g Lrxlis Herdegen, e x e c u t o r , S i
be admitted t o probate. It i s f u r t h e r ordered t h a t t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t w i l l hold
a h e a r i n g t o d e t e r m i n e p r o p e r and r e a s o n a b l e c h a r g e s f o r c o s t s and f e e s .
Footnotes
[11] 1 Sometimes i t happens t h a t a l a t e r w i l l makes no change a t a l l i n t h e d i s p o s i t i o n of t h e t e s t a t o r ' s e s t a t e , b u t merely nominates a d i f f e r e n t e x e c u t o r . I n such a c a s e , why should t h e e s t a t e be burdened by w i l l c o n t e s t proceedings f o r t h e s o l e purpose of determining which of t h e two r i v a l c l a i m a n t s should be permitted t o a c t a s executor? . - - and t h e b e t t e r r e a s.o n i n g f a. , r t h e r u l e t h a t a . . vo ..... "'1t i s o u r c o n c l u s i o n t h a t ;k 9; " t h e weight of a u t h o r i t y - c o n t e s t cannot be i n i t i a t e d by an e x e c u ~ o rnamed i n a T - .. p r i o r w i l l . "' (Emphasis s u p p l i e d ) . I n c o n c l u s i o n t h e Court i n -7 i l l H stated: II Since i f t h e r e were no w i l l , H i l l would n o t succeed i n some d e g r e e t o t h e d e c e d e n t ' s e s t a t e , he i s n o t a person who may appear and c o n t e s t t h e w i l l . "The lower c o u r t , t h e r e f o r e , p r o p e r l y s u s t a i n e d ~ e e s ' s demurrer. I I The i s s u e was r a i s e d a g a i n i n E s t a t e of Maricich, 140 Mont. 319, 321, 371 P.2d 354. The Court s t a t e d : I1 The a p p e l l a n t i n i t i a l l y r a i s e d two q u e s t i o n s : (1) Can a named e x e c u t o r i n a p r i o r w i l l m a i n t a i n a w i l l c o n t e s t o f a subsequently executed w i l l ? As t o t h i s p o i n t he concedes t h a t t h i s q u e s t i o n h a s p r e v i o u s l y been b e f o r e t h i s c o u r t and decided ad- v e r s e l y t o h i s p o s i t i o n i n S t a t e ex r e l . H i l l v. D i s t r i c t Court, 126 Mont. 1, 242 P. 2d 850, 31 A.L.R.2d 749, and t h e m a t t e r i s now s t a r e d e c i s i s 9 : +c*tr : ; See a l s o E s t a t e of French, 137 Mont. 228, 351 P.2d 548. It i s c l e a r t h a t 1.fcICeon had no s t a n d i n g t o appear and c o n t e s t t h e Herdegen w i l l and Herdegen's motion t o d i s m i s s should have been g r a n t e d . I.ZcKeon, i n h i s b r i e f , a r g u e s t h a t he d i d n o t appear and c o n t e s t t h e w i l l o f f e r e d by Herdegen b u t merely o f f e r e d t h e e a r l i e r w i l l f o r the c o u r t ' s consideration. W f i n d no m e r i t t o t h i s e argument. The r e c o r d c l e a r l y i n d i c a t e s : 1) There was a c o n t e s t of t h e Herdegen w i l l f i l e d pursuant t o s e c t i o n 91-901, R.C.M. 1947, i n which a t r i a l j u r y was demanded. M. Chief J u s t i c e James T . H a r r i s o n t o o k no p a r t i n r t h i s opinion.