Estate of H. Burns, 540 P.3d 1029

Horatio Burns died in 2018, leaving significant property in Montana and Oregon and a large share in a family LLC.
His 2010 will provided equally for his children if his wife predeceased him, but in 2016 he executed a new will largely favoring his son Cameron and Cameron’s wife, Alison, disinheriting Lindsay and Seth except for LLC shares.
After Horatio’s death, Cameron offered the 2016 will for probate. Lindsay, his daughter, contested its validity, alleging it was the product of undue influence by Cameron and Alison.
A jury found that the 2016 will was valid and not the result of undue influence. Post-trial, Lindsay moved for a new trial, citing juror misconduct involving extrinsic internet research during deliberations; she also challenged attorney fees awarded to Alison and the Estate, and the district court’s calculation of post-judgment interest.
The district court entered judgment validating the will and awarded attorney fees to both the Estate and Alison. Lindsay appealed on several grounds.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Alison’s participation as a party	Alison’s response to the petition was untimely & not allowed	Alison was an interested person with right to respond	Allowing Alison’s participation was within district court’s discretion
New trial due to juror misconduct	External internet research on key term "undue" prejudiced trial	Definition obtained did not materially differ from instructions	No substantial prejudice demonstrated; no new trial warranted
Attorney fees to Alison	Fees not available since Alison was primarily defending her interest	Statute permits fees if defending will’s validity	Attorney fees to Alison reversed; only Estate properly awarded fees
Post-judgment interest calculation	Interest rate should not reset annually	Statute requires annual recalculation	Interest set as of judgment date and fixed; annual reset incorrect

Stebner v. Associated Materials, Inc., 356 Mont. 520 (Mont. 2010) (clarifies use of juror affidavits and prejudice standard for juror misconduct)
Allers v. Riley, 273 Mont. 1 (Mont. 1995) (stands for proposition that extrinsic juror information that re-defines key legal terms may warrant new trial)
Preste v. Mountain View Ranches, 180 Mont. 369 (Mont. 1979) (addressing standards for joinder of parties under Rule 20)
Brockie v. Omo Constr., 255 Mont. 495 (Mont. 1992) (explains prejudice required for new trial based on juror misconduct)