Matter of the Estate of Gregory Eng
2017 MT 100
| Mont. | 2017Background
- Gregory Engellant is a protected person who was permanently disabled in 1982; his brother Kenneth has served as conservator since 1985.
- Gregory executed wills in 1978 and 2012; his nephews Daren and Kevin are devisees under both wills.
- Daren and Kevin alleged Kenneth mismanaged Gregory’s conservatorship estate, complained to Adult Protective Services, and later filed a petition in the conservatorship proceeding (Nov. 2014) to remove Kenneth as conservator.
- Kenneth moved for summary judgment arguing Daren and Kevin lacked standing to bring a removal petition.
- The District Court granted summary judgment (Sept. 2016), holding the nephews did not fall within § 72-5-413(4), MCA, and thus lacked standing; the nephews appealed.
- The Montana Supreme Court reversed, holding devisees are “interested persons” under the UPC definition and may have standing to petition under § 72-5-413, MCA.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Daren and Kevin have standing to petition to remove a conservator | As devisees under Gregory’s wills, Daren and Kevin are "interested persons" under § 72-1-103(25) and thus may petition to remove a conservator | Only those who "furnish or supply money for support or care" under § 72-5-413(4) may petition; nephews are merely devisees with expectancy interests and lack standing | Reversed: the UPC general definition of “interested person” (including devisees) applies; § 72-5-413(4) is a nonexclusive, additional definition that expands, not limits, who may petition |
Key Cases Cited
- Pilgeram v. GreenPoint Mortgage, 313 P.3d 839 (Mont. 2013) (standard of review for summary judgment)
- In re Conservatorship of Kloss, 109 P.3d 205 (Mont. 2005) (statutory interpretation; plain‑meaning approach)
- Infinity Ins. Co. v. Dodson, 14 P.3d 487 (Mont. 2000) (construe statute as a whole to avoid absurd results)
- In re Estate of Easterbrook, 80 P.3d 419 (Mont. 2003) (harmonious construction of related statutes)
- In re the Estate of Miles v. Miles, 994 P.2d 1139 (Mont. 2000) (interpreting "interested person" in a different factual context)
- In re the Guardianship and Conservatorship of Anderson, 218 P.3d 1220 (Mont. 2009) (distinguished on facts regarding present property rights)