341 P.3d 623
Mont.2014Background
- William Corrigan filed for dissolution in 2008; the court clerk issued a summons with a statutory temporary restraining order (TRO) prohibiting transfers or beneficiary changes, but William never served Mary Helen (his wife/respondent).
- Under Mont. R. Civ. P. 4(t)(1) a plaintiff must serve a defendant within three years or the court must dismiss the action without prejudice.
- In 2012 William changed the beneficiary of his State Farm IRA, removing Mary Helen and naming the three adult children as primary beneficiaries; he died shortly thereafter.
- Mary Helen (as personal representative and spouse) asserted an elective-share claim and moved to void the beneficiary change, arguing the TRO prohibited it.
- The adult children argued the TRO was ineffective because it was never served within the three-year period; the district court refused to void the change on equitable grounds and granted summary judgment to the children.
- The Montana Supreme Court affirmed, holding the unserved TRO became ineffective after the Rule 4(t) service period expired, so William was free to change beneficiaries and the children are primary beneficiaries.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Corrigan) | Defendant's Argument (Children) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the divorce TRO barred the decedent’s 2012 IRA beneficiary change | TRO became effective on filing and was never vacated, so it prohibited changing beneficiaries; Briese requires voiding such changes when equity demands it | TRO was ineffective because William failed to serve Mary Helen within the 3-year Rule 4(t) deadline, so change was valid; equity disfavors voiding here | Court held the TRO was rendered ineffective after the Rule 4(t) service period expired; beneficiary change valid and children are primary beneficiaries |
Key Cases Cited
- Briese v. Mont. Pub. Emp. Ret. Bd., 285 P.3d 550 (Mont. 2012) (courts have equitable power to restore status quo and may void beneficiary changes made in violation of a divorce TRO)
- Pesarik v. Perjessy, 194 P.3d 665 (Mont. 2008) (Rule 4 service language should not be interpreted as automatically mandatory without judicial consideration)
- PacifiCorp v. State, 253 P.3d 847 (Mont. 2011) (appellate court may affirm correct result even if district court’s reasoning differs)
- Estate of Hedrick v. Lamach, 324 P.3d 1202 (Mont. 2014) (summary judgment reviewed de novo)
- Varano v. Hicks, 285 P.3d 592 (Mont. 2012) (legal conclusions reviewed for correctness)