Estate of Burrell v. Estate of Burrell
2010 MT 280
| Mont. | 2010Background
- Evalyn Burrell died in 1996 survived by Louis Jr. and grandchildren Donald Burrell, Christopher Burrell, and Esther Fowler; Evalyn's will named Louis Jr. as personal representative and sole beneficiary.
- Two parcels comprise the Burrell property: an 80-acre parcel (Donald's residence) and a 120-acre parcel (co-owned by Evalyn and Louis Jr.).
- Grandchildren stood in the place of their deceased father and held the remaining interest in the 120-acre parcel.
- In 2000 Christopher filed for bankruptcy, transferring his interest in the 120-acre parcel to Louis Jr.; in 2005 Donald and Esther sought partition of the 120-acre parcel.
- July 7, 2006 settlement resolved both the will and partition actions, with dismissal of appeals and a grant of a 40-acre parcel to the Grandchildren in exchange for relinquishing other interests.
- August 2007 the Grandchildren moved to enforce the Agreement; disputes over the scope of ownership outside the 40 acres persisted, leading to post-settlement interpretations and fee awards.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the Agreement unambiguously forfeited Grandchildren's ownership outside 40 acres | Burrells: agreement required surrender of all other ownership | Estate: language shows full conveyance in exchange for 40 acres | Agreement unambiguously relinquished outside 40 acres |
| Whether Estate was entitled to attorney fees on enforcement | Burrells: fees were improper or excessive | Estate prevailed; contract allocates prevailing-party fees | Yes, Estate entitled to reasonable fees; amount supported by evidence |
| Whether the District Court should have forfeited the Grandchildren's rights under the Agreement | Burrells: rights forfeiture not warranted | Estate sought forfeiture due to noncompliance | Estate's cross-appeal waived; court declines to address forfeiture on appeal |
| Whether the District Court erred by not holding a hearing on contempt against Donald | Burrells: contempt should be considered | Estate: contempt hearing not required; order appropriate | Contempt issue not reviewable on appeal; writ review not invoked |
Key Cases Cited
- Gamble v. Sears, 337 Mont. 354, 160 P.3d 537 (MT 2007) (contract interpretation and settlement enforceability)
- Wyant v. Kenda, 324 Mont. 342, 102 P.3d 1260 (MT 2004) (contract interpretation as a question of law)
- In re Marriage of Szafryk, 356 Mont. 141, 232 P.3d 361 (MT 2010) (award of attorney fees; standard of review)