In Re the Estate of Benjamin, 339 P.3d 1232

Norman Benjamin died July 15, 2009; his will named his wife Joyce as sole devisee and provided that tangible personal property be distributed among surviving children by agreement or by lot.
Cecil Benjamin (son) filed the will for probate and was appointed personal representative; probate decree naming Joyce sole devisee was entered in January 2010; Delmar (another son) received notice but did not participate.
In December 2011 Delmar sued Cecil and Joyce alleging breach of fiduciary duty for distribution of tangible personal property that excluded him; the District Court dismissed for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction and labeled the dismissal "with prejudice." This Court affirmed lack of jurisdiction in Benjamin I.
In November 2013 Delmar filed a Petition to Reopen Probate alleging actual fraud, misrepresentation, self-dealing by Cecil, and newly discovered tangible personal property requiring redistribution under the probate statutes.
The District Court denied the Petition sua sponte, concluding res judicata barred Delmar’s claims because his earlier complaint was dismissed with prejudice and that decision was affirmed on appeal.
The Montana Supreme Court reversed and remanded, holding res judicata did not bar Delmar’s fraud and newly discovered property claims because the prior dismissal was for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction and thus could not be given preclusive effect on the merits.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether res judicata bars Delmar’s fraud and newly discovered tangible personal property claims because his earlier complaint was dismissed "with prejudice" for lack of jurisdiction	Delmar: prior dismissal did not adjudicate merits; his new claims (fraud, newly discovered property) were never litigated and rest on facts independent of probate interpretation	Cecil: Delmar should have raised estate-related claims during the 2010 probate; the prior dismissal with prejudice and affirmed decision precludes relitigation under res judicata	Court: Res judicata does not bar the claims — dismissal for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction cannot be treated as a merits adjudication; remanded for further proceedings

Touris v. Flathead County, 361 Mont. 172, 258 P.3d 1 (Mont. 2011) (standard for reviewing res judicata application)
Lewis & Clark County v. Schroeder, 374 Mont. 477, 323 P.3d 207 (Mont. 2014) (res judicata prevents relitigation of a cause of action)
Olsen v. Milner, 364 Mont. 523, 276 P.3d 934 (Mont. 2012) (policy favoring finality and single-action litigation)
Baltrusch v. Baltrusch, 331 Mont. 281, 130 P.3d 1267 (Mont. 2006) (elements required for res judicata)
In re Estate of Big Spring (Big Spring v. Conway), 360 Mont. 370, 255 P.3d 121 (Mont. 2011) (dismissal required where court lacks subject-matter jurisdiction)
Schuster v. Northern Co., 127 Mont. 39, 257 P.2d 249 (Mont. 1953) (historical discussion of effect of dismissal with prejudice)
Cook v. Soo Line R.R. Co., 347 Mont. 372, 198 P.3d 310 (Mont. 2008) (res judicata presumes a judgment rendered on the merits)
Frigard v. United States, 862 F.2d 201 (9th Cir. 1988) (dismissal for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction ordinarily should be without prejudice)