Shephard v. Widhalm, 2012 MT 276

Paul and Evonne Widhalm owned a farm in Pondera County as tenants in common with a buy/lease arrangement and subletting prohibition.
A third lease for a five-year term starting January 1, 2009 was prepared; Evonne signed it as sole owner without Paul’s Personal Representative signature.
Paul died in 2008; Roslyn Shephard became Personal Representative of Paul’s estate and later of Evonne’s estate after Evonne’s death.
The Widhalms claimed the third lease was valid and sought specific performance; Shephard contended the lease was invalid without Paul’s representative’s signature and alleged breach via subletting to Wheeler.
The district court found the third lease valid, that there was no subletting, and that notice and cure rights applied; it granted specific performance and limited damages, including crop inputs, plus attorney fees.
On appeal, Shephard challenged validity, notice/cure, and damages; the Widhalms cross-appealed regarding attorney fees and damages beyond crop inputs.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Lease validity without Shephard's signature	Shephard lacked authority to bind without Paul’s rep.	Evonne, as owner, could lease; 72-3-606 allows administration control not needed here.	Lease valid despite Shephard's non-signature
Whether Widhalms sublet to Wheeler	Robert's actions and Wheeler's involvement amount to subletting.	Robert did not sublet; intent to reconstitute land not an assignment to Wheeler.	No subletting proven; substantial evidence supports finding against sublet
Notice and opportunity to cure	If breach occurred, Widhalms must be given notice and cure opportunity.	No breach by Widhalms since no sublet occurred; notice was not required if no breach.	Notice and cure requirement applied; breach not proven
Attorney fees award	Contingent fee arrangement supports higher award; full amount reasonable.	Contingent fee vague; award should reflect hours actually worked and reasonableness.	Hourly award of $98,431 not an abuse of discretion
Damages beyond crop inputs	Damages include lost farm income and other losses proven by evidence.	Evidence insufficient and too speculative to award more than crop inputs.	No additional damages awarded; district court findings upheld

Rumney v. Skinner, 64 Mont. 75, 208 P. 895 (Mont. 1922) (personal representative's control limited to administration needs)
In re Armesworthey’s Est., 117 Mont. 602, 160 P.2d 472 (Mont. 1945) (devisee title vests at testator's death; deed confirms)
In re Est. of Deschamps, 65 Mont. 207, 212 P. 512 (Mont. 1922) (estate administration powers; distribution relevance)
Hallenberg v. Gen. Mills Operations, Inc., 141 P.3d 1216 (Mont. 2006) (appellate review standard for trial court findings)
Glaspey v. Workman, 763 P.2d 666 (Mont. 1988) (attorney fees award reviewed for reasonableness)
Morning Star Enters. v. R.H. Grover, Inc., 805 P.2d 553 (Mont. 1991) (factors for evaluating attorney fee awards)
Plath v. Schonrock, 64 P.3d 984 (Mont. 2003) (factors guiding attorney fees; reasonableness tailors award to case)
Renner v. Nemitz, 33 P.3d 255 (Mont. 2001) (standard of review for district court decisions)
Karlson v. Rosich, 334 Mont. 370, 147 P.3d 196 (Mont. 2006) (clear error and substantial evidence standards)
Thorp, 356 Mont. 150, 231 P.3d 1096 (Mont. 2010) (witness credibility and weight of testimony on appeal)