*1
OF
ESTATE
IN RE THE
KURALT.
CHARLES
No. 00-745.
2001.
Briefs
Submitted on
August
Decided
Whitney, Falls; Jardine, Great Gary Bjelland, Stephenson, Weaver, Blewett & Great Falls. Goetz, Goetz, Gallik, For H. Respondents: James & Baldwin Dolan, Bozeman. JUSTICE Opinion REGNIER delivered the of the Court. (“Bowers White”) Susan Bowers and Lisa Bowers Wbdte ¶1 appeal Co-Personal *2 Denying Appointment from the Order Petition for of Successor Representatives issued the Fifth Judicial District Court, County. Appellants Madison raise one issue: the We District Court erred when it denied their petition reverse and proceedings remand for consistent with this opinion. BACKGROUND 4, 1997, July On Charles Kuralt in hospital ¶2 City. died a in New York widow, Kuralt, His Suzanna “Petie” Baird thereafter a filed in petition seeking the state courts of New York his probate estate. 15, 1997, September Petie, On Domiciliary Foreign as the Personal Representative Kuralt, of the Estate of Charles secured Montana Authority counsel and filed a Proof of and seeking probate certain real personal property County, owned Kuralt in Madison Montana. 30,1997, September On Patricia Elizabeth an intimate ¶3 companion nearly thirty years, of Kuralt for filed a Petition for Ancillary Probate of petition challenged application Will. This the of Kuralt’s York personal property New will to the real and in Madison letter, County. part, In the petition basis for Shannon’s was a dated 18,1997, shortly June which she had received Mr. from Kuralt before indicating his death that he intended that Shannon “inherit” 90 acres of real property along Big the Hole River. Shannon claimed that the holographic letter constituted a valid real should not be allowed to will that entitled her to Kuralt’s County and, therefore, in Madison property property that the pass under the antecedent terms of Kuralt’s York New will. granted summary judgment The District Court in favor of partial 26,1998. Court, Kuralt, May the Estate on MT This in in re Estate of ("Kuralt 111, 354, 981 I"), 294 Mont. P.2d 771 reversed the District disputed Court and remanded the case for trial in order to resolve evidentiary of Following hearing issues material fact. on a valid an abbreviated remand, the District Court held that the June letter was holographic codicil to Kuralt’s formal will and entered judgement appealed favor of Shannon. Estate and on December Kuralt, MT we affirmed. In re Estate ("Kuralt II"). 335, 15 The critical events that rise to current occurred give appeal Petie, prior They to our issuance of Kuralt II. are as follows: Montana, York and personal representative of the Estate both New filed a Bench died October 1999. On the Estate Domiciliary Regarding Appointment Memorandum Foreign Termination Representative informing Personal the court of Petie’s death personal representation of her corresponding and the termination completely had been administered Estate the Estate. It stated distributed closed, property the contested Montana had been Petie, therefore, no and, successor to Estate that, 72-3- necessary. pursuant § Estate claimed was White, 522(2), daughters, MCA, two Charles Petie’s Montana Petie’s estate to which distributed, any relevant assets. The protect property had been if a successor suggested claims, the District Court prosecution of Shannon’s necessary for special representative, could administrator, or, successor Kuralt estate as alternatively, substitute the Petie the real in interest. petition On March Shannon filed representative or, alternatively, administrator. response, Shannon’s requested a court appeal denied its the Estate petition stay pending consideration Estate’s II. The District requested in Kuralt if the Court stay, grant for a the court Bowers and White a request seeking time within to submit reasonable which as the appointment of either themselves or nominee representative of the Estate. request On District Court denied Shannon’s she personal representative because the the appointed be litigant clouding court determined she was an active *3 Instead, special Estate. the court R. Neil as appointed Kent administrator ¶8 personal appointed Bowers and White were as successor 21,2000. representatives of the Estate in New York Kuralt on On August 21, 2000, petitioned Bowers and court to White the terminate appointment special the of the and to them They of the Estate in Montana. York, they pursuant contended their had appointment New priority appointment absolute for in Montana as well as the coincident administrator. Shannon right special the resisted remove Bowers right petition, they and that had arguing White’s renounced Alternatively, appointment. Shannon stated that she would withdraw her would file a if request appointment they to Bowers and White’s resistance satisfactory bond. 20, 2000, On the District Court denied Bowers and September court that Bowers request White’s and personal there determined informally right as successor White had renounced to serve Estate in Montana representatives of the Kuralt significant between Bowers and White and appeal. Shannon. Bowers White STANDARD OF REVIEW standard of review this dispute the ¶10 Court (1996), Mont. employ. Citing Estate 275 should of Goick 76 909 P.2d Bowers and contend we White review a respect district court order with appointment to determine correctly the court has contends, however, interpreted the law. Shannon that the question presented in the appointment instant case does not involve the initial personal representative, of a administrator rather replacement special but of a appointed by probate Citing court. re
Haagenson (1997), 952 P.2d Shannon maintains standard of review of a district decision court’s regarding a personal representative the removal of whether the district court abused its discretion. case, Neither is correct. As is often the the answer lies by somewhere between the two positions parties. advocated questions raised appeal actually White’s involve First, multiple standards of review. whether Bowers and have statutory priority personal representatives Estate Montana as a result their appointment York, representatives ofthe right Estate New as well as a coincident administrator, to which we review the law. See In re Estate P.2d removal of legal question obtain is a correctly interpreted to determine whether the court (1994), 110, 104, Peterson Mont. 265 874 1230, 1233. The District Court’s determination Bowers and right White renounced their interpretation involved the application governing of the statute renunciation. Questions statutory interpretation application are reviewed for See, W., 6, e.g., correctness. 975 P.2d In re A. MT ¶ ¶ Lastly, regard with to whether Bowers and White have a prevents conflict with Shannon which them being from appointed personal administrators, we review a district court’s refusal to appoint administrator to determine whether court 108, 874 abused its discretion. at P.2d atMont. Cf. 1232 (affirming removal of administrator because of a standard); conflict of interest under abuse of discretion Obstarczyk In re Estate of (same). (1963), 346, 352-53, 377 531, 534-35 141Mont. DISCUSSION Did the District Court err when it denied Bowers and White’s petition to be appointed Estate Montana? they Bowers and White contend that are entitled to ancillary as successor personal representatives because have been appointed domiciliary personal representatives of the Estate in New
York.
responds
Shannon
and White are barred
judicata
relitigating
doctrine of res
entitled
Shannon moved
from
the issue of whether
are
*4
appointment
as
could have raised that
when
issue
representative.
for appointment
as
however,
White’s
merits of this
judicata
failed to raise the defense of
to Bowers and
res
petition
for
decline to address the
appointment below. We
argument
appeal.
for the first time on
See Moore v.
¶
1998 MT
Imperial
Corp.,
Hotels
¶
they have
maintaining
that
and White are correct
Bowers
right
as
coincident
obtain
for
as well
priority
appointment
domiciliary personal
As
administrator.
removal
representatives,
all other
“priority
securing appointment
Bowers and White have
over
as
72-3-506,
MCA.Incident
persons.” Section
“may
obtain
in this
ancillary personal representative, Bowers
appointed personal representative
of another who was
removal
72-3-526(3), MCA.
to administer local assets.” Section
state
However,
statutory priority
appointment
for
Bowers and White’s
may
Any person
appointment
matter.
entitled
does
renounce that
end the
court.
right by
writing filed with the
Section
72-3-504(2),
denied
White’s
Bowers
MCA.
District Court
Bowers
part,
for
because it determined
petition
appointment,
statutory
“informally”
priority
on
White had
renounced
through
2000, by indicating
local
and March
appointment.
did not intend
seek
counsel
¶16
and White
The District Court’s determination
Bowers
appointment is incorrect.
essence
priority
renounced their
for
February 22,
was
the Estate’s
Bench Memorandum
longer
personal representative
no
needed a
because it
Kuralt Estate
had been
that
completely
administered and closed. The Estate observed
of the
property
subject
the Montana
which was
instant
Accordingly,
dispute
already
had
been distributed to Petie
Kuralt.
suggested
the real
that the court substitute Petie’s estate as
Bowers
were the
interest and observed that
and White
ofthis estate. The Estate also contended that
proving
Shannon had
burden
petition
necessary.
subsequently
was
Shannon
filed
representative
as
In a
seeking
appointment
petition
filed on
to Shannon’s
for
April
response
brief
the Estate
if it determined that
appointment,
informed
court
necessary,
and White had
personal representative
a
statutory priority
Bowers
pursue
it. From the
appointment
forgoing, we cannot conclude that Bowers and White renounced their
priority
However,
Bowers and White did not renounce their
though
even
“A
statutory
district court can remove a
a
right.
is not an absolute
priority, priority for
refuse to
personal representative
or
is a
for cause if there
personal representative
as
interests and those
the estate.”
person’s
between
at
than
awith
devisee is so fatuous as to not
response.”
merit
We conclude that
the District Court’s refusal
to appoint
Bowers and White on the basis of a conflict with Shannon was an
abuse of the court’s discretion. We have stated that a district court can
“refuse to
a
for cause if
there is a conflict of interest
person’s
between that
interests and those
of the
(citing
534-35).
Peterson,
estate.” Estate
at
¶23 He matter, working knowledge filings related this has a all broad, understanding positions of the issues on-going evidentiary hearings Additionally, presided has over two parties. during he he the demeanor which was able observe intensity level representatives, as well as the and/or respective positions. case, Judge singular understanding of his this As result ¶24 Christensen found that Bowers and unwilling White “were assume taxes, management, protection payment responsibility in Montana.” He also found Estate’s assets preservation *6 the Charles represent not an Shannon was in that do little to resolve the Kuralt Estate many those her “would litigant the Estate in that she is an active clouding very claims.” majority states at 19: “We see no reason to refuse likely they may simply of Bowers because not we resist refuse district court abused its discretion the claims of a devisee.” or see reason Whether issue. The issue is whether refusing it. I hold it to determine was within the district court’s discretion White, matter, and Shannon for that should act as Therefore, I would conclude that it was decide that Judge not an abuse of discretion Christensen of all in this Estate” were better served “best interests affected I affirm. Special Administrator. would court-appointed