305 P.3d 52
Mont.2013Background
- Lilliane Greene died testate on June 22, 2012; her daughter Dawn Bare applied for and received informal probate and appointment as personal representative on June 28, 2012.
- On June 28, Dawn mailed a "Notice and Information to Heirs and Devisees" stating the estate was being administered informally without court supervision.
- William Greene (son and devisee) did not appear until November 19, 2012, when his counsel filed a notice of appearance and a Motion for Substitution of Judge under § 3-1-804(1)(a), MCA.
- On November 28, William’s counsel filed a Petition for Supervised Administration under § 72-3-402, MCA.
- The District Court denied William’s substitution motion as untimely, reasoning the 30-day substitution period began when the June 28 notice was mailed; William appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether William’s motion for substitution of judge was timely under § 3-1-804(1)(a), MCA | The substitution right was available when he filed in November and his motion was timely (or the 30-day period had not been triggered by the informal probate notice). | The 30-day period began when the Notice and Information was mailed on June 28, so the November 19 motion was untimely. | The substitution statute did not apply to an informal probate; it became applicable only after a petition for supervised administration converted the matter to court supervision. William’s November 19 motion was premature and therefore void. |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Marriage of Archibald, 297 Mont. 20, 993 P.2d 653 (cited for standard of review on timeliness of substitution)
- Pinnow v. State, 340 Mont. 217, 172 P.3d 1273 (discussing applicability of substitution statute in civil actions)
- Patrick v. State, 361 Mont. 204, 257 P.3d 365 (defining scope and narrow exceptions to substitution statute)
- Mattson v. Montana Power, 309 Mont. 506, 48 P.3d 34 (statutory construction principles)
- In re B.A.M., 346 Mont. 49, 192 P.3d 1161 (court will affirm correct result even if district court gave a different reason)
