Estate of Dahlke ex rel. Jubie v. Dahlke
319 P.3d 116
| Wyo. | 2014Background
- Kent Dahlke died with Sara as personal representative; Big Horn Federal joint account funds were included in Kent's probate estate despite survivorship.; Irregular probate conduct included failure to advise on elective share and lack of waivers for hearing; final decree of distribution entered August 1, 2006 without discharge or closing the estate.; Oregon ancillary probate transferred assets including the Barge Inn to Sara; Sara later transferred assets to her own trust, prompting litigation.
- Final report, accounting, and decree of distribution were approved without a hearing and waivers, and no discharge petition was ever filed to close the estate.
- Sara and Jubie (as Sara’s daughter) sought to set aside the decree five years after distribution; district court granted summary judgment denying relief.
- Wyoming probate code treats decree of distribution as final and appealable; controversy centers on whether the decree can be challenged and whether due process and elective-share advisement were satisfied.
- Appellants contend the decree was void or voidable due to lack of notice/hearing, misrepresented waivers, and potential attorney misconduct; court rejects these grounds as insufficient to void or reopen the decree.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Is the decree of distribution final and appealable. | Jubie argues decree was interlocutory | District court treated decree as final | Decree final and appealable |
| Was the decree void under Rule 60(b)(4) or 60(b)(6) for irregularities? | Relief under Rule 60(b) to set aside | Judgment not void; not merit-based for relief | Decree not void; Rule 60(b) relief denied |
| Did failure to give notices/hearings violate due process? | Failure to waive/hear violated due process | Court had jurisdiction; notice issues were harmless | Not a due process violation; not void |
| Was there required advisement of elective share under 2-5-101/104/105? | Advisement was mandatory; Sara may have been deprived | Omission not foundational error given record showing Sara's receipt of benefits | Omission not fundamental error; decree stands |
| Does possible attorney malpractice preclude relief or require reopening? | Malpractice claim could proceed | No basis to reopen decree; equitable relief denied | Malpractice potential does not force reopening; decree affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Estate of Novakovich, 101 P.3d 981 (Wy. 2004) (final decree and order closing are final judgments; appealability separate from finality of distribution)
- Taylor v. Estate of Taylor, 719 P.2d 284 (Wy. 1986) (decree of distribution is final and res judicata if not appealed)
- In re Hartt's Estate, 295 P.2d 985 (Wy. 1956) (discussion on finality and timely appeal in probate)
- In the Interest of WM, 778 P.2d 1106 (Wy. 1989) (finality of judgments and discretionary relief; due process considerations)
- Hochhalter v. Great Western Enterprises, Inc., 708 P.2d 666 (Wy. 1985) ( Rule 60(b)(6) relief tied to exceptional circumstances; attorney negligence not automatic relief)
- Swain v. State, 220 P.3d 504 (Wy. 2009) (example where jurisdictional error vs. error in exercise of jurisdiction)
- In re Kite Ranch, LLC v. Powell Family of Yakima, LLC, 181 P.3d 920 (Wy. 2008) (Rule 60(b) relief not substitute for appeals)