In Re the Estate of Erickson
2017 MT 260
| Mont. | 2017Background
- Bruce A. Erickson died in 2015, survived by his wife Gail and two adult children (Tyler and Taylor); Decedent left a 1995 Will and a 2008 Codicil nominating Tyler as personal representative (PR).
- Gail initially applied for informal appointment as PR and represented to the court she was unaware of any testamentary instrument; the clerk appointed her PR but Tyler later filed for formal probate of the Will and Codicil.
- At the January 26, 2016 formal-probate hearing Gail (through counsel) expressly declined to object to probate or Tyler’s appointment and did not mention a separate document (the “6 Point Document”). The court entered a Formal Testacy Order; Gail did not appeal.
- Months later Gail asserted the 6 Point Document was a testamentary instrument (a codicil), filed a creditor claim and then moved to vacate/modify the Formal Testacy Order or, alternatively, impose a constructive trust after the claim was disallowed.
- The District Court denied Gail’s motion under § 72-3-317, MCA, denied imposition of a constructive trust, and found the PR entitled to attorney fees; Gail appealed. The Supreme Court affirmed and remanded to determine reasonable fees.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Gail) | Defendant's Argument (Tyler/PR) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Does Rule 60(b) apply to relief from a Formal Testacy Order? | Rule 60(b)(6) governs relief from the order, not § 72-3-317. | § 72-3-317 (UPC) specifically governs vacation/modification of formal testacy orders and is inconsistent with Rule 60. | Court: UPC § 72-3-317 controls; Rule 60(b) does not apply here. |
| 2. May the court modify the Formal Testacy Order under § 72-3-317(4) to admit the 6 Point Document? | § 72-3-317(4) stands alone and permits modification; Gail’s counsel was negligent and PR breached duties. | § 72-3-317(1) requires the proponent of a later will to show unawareness of the will or proceeding; Gail knew of the document and the hearing. | Court: Sections 1 and 4 read together; Gail failed to meet § 72-3-317(1) showing, so relief denied. |
| 3. Should a constructive trust be imposed for Gail based on the 6 Point Document? | Equity requires a constructive trust to prevent unjust enrichment and effect testamentary intent. | Gail had knowledge/control of the 6 Point Document and misrepresented facts to the court; she lacks clean hands. | Court: Denial affirmed; Gail’s conduct bars equitable relief. |
| 4. Is the PR entitled to attorney fees under § 72-12-206? | Gail: She did not contest probate; fees are untimely or improper. | PR: He defended the probate against Gail’s challenge and the will was confirmed, so statute mandates fees. | Court: PR entitled to fees and costs; cross-appeal properly filed; remanded to determine reasonable amount. |
Key Cases Cited
- Neumann v. Rogstad, 757 P.2d 761 (Mont. 1988) (procedural rule on cross-appeals and timing of motions)
- Powers Mfg. Co. v. Leon Jacobs Enterprises, 701 P.2d 1377 (Mont. 1985) (district court jurisdiction after appeal; ancillary matters)
- Bank of Am. v. Ivey, 234 P.3d 867 (Mont. 2010) (courts must follow plain statutory language)
- Schindler v. United Servs. Auto. Ass’n, 254 P.3d 583 (Mont. 2011) (equitable relief and doctrine of clean hands)
- In re Estate of Edwards, 393 P.3d 639 (Mont. 2017) (attorney-fee entitlement when probate is contested and will is confirmed)