Stoican v. Wagner, 378 Mont. 281

Dennis Lawlor executed a will on Dec. 6, 2012, and died Dec. 7, 2012; the will devised his estate to two living sisters (Antoinette and Mary) and excluded his brother John Lawlor; Mark Wagner was named personal representative.
Decedent’s sister Joan predeceased him; Joan’s daughter Audrey Stoican and Joan’s grandson John Stoican are potential heirs by representation if intestate distribution applies.
Mark obtained informal probate and letters as personal representative; Audrey moved to convert to formal probate, alleging lack of testamentary capacity and undue influence; formal probate was ordered.
Audrey and John Stoican (later joined by John Lawlor) filed a will contest alleging lack of capacity, undue influence, tortious interference and fiduciary breaches; separately, Audrey sought removal of Mark as personal representative under § 72-3-526, MCA, alleging conflict of interest.
The District Court held Audrey and John Stoican lacked standing to contest the will or to petition for removal; plaintiffs appealed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
1. Does Audrey have standing to contest the will?	Audrey would inherit Joan’s share if the will is invalidated, so she has a pecuniary interest.	Wagners argued plaintiffs lacked standing as not devisees under the will.	Reversed in part: Audrey is an "interested person" with standing to contest the will because she would succeed under intestacy.
2. Does Audrey have standing to petition for removal of the personal representative for cause under § 72‑3‑526?	Audrey argued her status as a disinherited heir and alleged conflicts justify removal standing to protect potential inheritance.	Wagners/Mark argued § 72‑3‑526 permits only a "person interested in the estate" (requiring a present claim, property interest, or priority for appointment) and Audrey lacks those.	Affirmed in part: Audrey lacks standing to petition for removal for cause because she has no present claim, property interest, or priority for appointment while the will remains presumptively valid.

In re Charles M. Bair Family Trust, 343 Mont. 138, 183 P.3d 61 (Mont. 2008) (standing as a legal conclusion reviewed for correctness)
In re Estate of Glennie, 362 Mont. 508, 265 P.3d 654 (Mont. 2011) (party has standing to contest will if pecuniary interest; distinguishes conditional standing)
Estate of Miles v. Miles, 298 Mont. 312, 994 P.2d 1139 (Mont. 2000) (definition and limits of "interested person")
In re Estate of Hannum, 366 Mont. 1, 285 P.3d 463 (Mont. 2012) (grounds for removal of personal representative focus on estate harm or fiduciary breach)
In re Estate of Anderson‑Feeley, 340 Mont. 352, 174 P.3d 512 (Mont. 2007) (removal standards for personal representatives)
Dewey v. Stringer, 375 Mont. 176, 325 P.3d 1236 (Mont. 2014) (court will affirm correct outcome even if reached for wrong reasoning)