397 P.3d 183
Wyo.2017Background
- Robert S. Meeker executed estate documents in 2010–2011 naming Carole Wagner as agent and primary beneficiary; his adult children (the Meeker children) later challenged the will as the product of undue influence and lack of capacity.
- Wagner filed a petition for probate and mailed statutorily required notice; notice of first publication was November 6, 2015.
- The clerk assigned one of the Fourth Judicial District judges to the probate; that judge had presided over an earlier guardianship/conservatorship action involving the same parties.
- On January 29, 2016 the Meeker children filed a petition to revoke the probate (a will contest) and, the same day, filed a motion for peremptory disqualification of the assigned judge under W.R.C.P. 40.1(b)(1).
- The district court denied the peremptory challenge as untimely (reasoning the disqualification deadline ran from notice of the judge in the probate) and then granted Wagner summary judgment on the will contest.
- The Wyoming Supreme Court held the district court erred: peremptory disqualification is available in probate will contests and the Meeker children’s challenge was timely because a will contest is a separate civil action and petitioners are plaintiffs who must file the peremptory motion within five days of filing the complaint.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether peremptory disqualification under Rule 40.1(b)(1) is available in probate will-contest proceedings | Peremptory challenges are available in probate contests; Rule 40.1(b)(5) does not bar them | Probate change-of-judge rule limits challenges to causes in subsection (b)(2) (for-cause only) | Held: Peremptory disqualification is available in probate will contests; Rule 40.1(b)(5) does not prohibit peremptory challenges |
| When the Rule 40.1(b)(1) five-day deadline runs in a will contest | Meeker children: they are plaintiffs in the will contest; deadline runs from filing their petition, so their peremptory motion (filed same day) was timely | Wagner: commencement of probate and her mailing of the probate petition to heirs constituted service, so defendants had 30 days and the Meeker children’s motion was untimely | Held: A will contest is a separate civil action; contestants are plaintiffs and must file the peremptory motion within five days of filing their petition — Meeker children’s motion was timely |
| Effect of a properly filed peremptory disqualification motion on the assigned judge’s authority | N/A (issue arises from rule) | N/A | Held: Upon a proper peremptory motion the challenged judge must reassign the case and has no further jurisdiction; orders entered thereafter are void |
| Consequence of district court’s denial and subsequent summary judgment | N/A | N/A | Held: Denial of timely peremptory disqualification was error; summary judgment entered by an improperly remaining judge is void; case reversed and remanded for reassignment |
Key Cases Cited
- Pawlowski v. Pawlowski, 925 P.2d 240 (Wyo. 1996) (challenged judge’s authority after peremptory disqualification is limited to reassignment)
- Olsten Staffing Servs., Inc. v. D.A. Stinger Servs., Inc., 921 P.2d 596 (Wyo. 1996) (orders by a disqualified judge are void; a party in default may still peremptorily disqualify)
- Russell v. Sullivan, 270 P.3d 677 (Wyo. 2012) (a will contest is collateral/separate from probate; contestants function as plaintiffs)
- Cotton v. McCulloh, 125 P.3d 252 (Wyo. 2005) (rules of procedure interpreted like statutes; plain language controls)
- Busch v. Horton Automatics, Inc., 196 P.3d 787 (Wyo. 2008) (construction of procedural rules — give effect to every word)