In Re the Estate of Harmon
2011 MT 84
Mont.2011Background
- Cecilia Harmon executed a 1976 will leaving her estate to her husband and Harmon's adoptive son, Roger Harmon.
- In December 2008 Cecilia handwritten a Holographic Will allegedly favoring Waitt and Knudson, not revoking the 1976 will explicitly.
- January 31, 2009 Cecilia executed a self-proved will revoking prior wills and bequeathing all property to Harmon.
- Cecilia died March 29, 2009; the January Will was informally admitted to probate and Harmon became Personal Representative.
- Harmon obtained court approval for partial distributions and property transfers favoring Waitt and Knudson before, allegedly, the holographic will was probated.
- Waitt petitioned for probate of the holographic will; Harmon moved for summary judgment in favor of the January Will; appeal followed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Validity of summary judgment on January Will | Waitt argues genuine issues exist on undue influence. | Harmon contends properly admitted will defeats Waitt's claims. | Summary judgment upheld; undue influence not shown. |
| Denial of Waitt's motion to vacate, alter or amend | Waitt alleges discovery failures and improper affidavit consideration. | Harmon contends no abuse of discretion and timely ruling. | No abuse; denial affirmed. |
| Rule 56(f) continuance request | Waitt sought additional discovery to oppose summary judgment. | Harmon argues discovery would not preclude judgment. | District court did not abuse discretion; denial affirmed. |
| Attorney's fees and costs for prevailing party | Waitt disputes fee award as premature and excessive. | Harmon seeks fees under § 72-12-206, MCA. | Fees and costs remanded for district court determination. |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Est. of Brooks, 927 P.2d 1027 (Mont. 1996) (probate presumptions and burden of proof on testamentary issues)
- In re Est. of Harms, 149 P.3d 557 (Mont. 2006) (undue influence considerations and nonexclusive factors)
- Bradshaw, 24 P.3d 211 (Mont. 2001) (nonexclusive factors for undue influence analysis)
- In re Est. of Lien, 892 P.2d 535 (Mont. 1995) (need for specific acts of undue influence)
- Thompson v. Steinkamp, 187 P.2d 1021 (Mont. 1948) (intent evidence when material to disputed fact, but distinguishable)
- Anderson v. Baker, 641 P.2d 1035 (Mont. 1982) (case distinguishing extrinsic evidence in standard form documents)
- Silver v. Thompson, 299 Mont. 506 (Mont. 2000) (extrinsic evidence and will-related declarations)
- In re Colbert's Est., 78 P. 971 (Mont. 1904) (hearsay and testamentary declarations generally not admissible)
- In re Est. of Wittman, 27 P.3d 35 (Mont. 2001) (limitations on testamentary declarations after execution)
- Richardson v. State, 130 P.3d 634 (Mont. 2006) (discovery violations and motion practice in summary judgment context)