JONES v FLASTED

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

No. 12941 I N T E SUPREME C U T O THE STATE O M N A A H OR F F OTN ELTA JONES, A d m i n i s t r a t r i x of t h e E s t a t e of E s t h e r F l a s t e d , Deceased, P l a i n t i f f and A p p e l l a n t , MERLE K. FLASTED, Defendant and ~ e s p o n d e n t . Appeal from: D i s t r i c t Court o f t h e S i x t e e n t h J u d i c i a l D i s t r i c t , Honorable A. B. Martin, Judge p r e s i d i n g . Counsel of Record: For Appellant : Denzil R. Young argued, Baker, Montana R. A. Smiley argued, B e l l e Fourche, South Dakota For Respondent : Gene Huntley argued, Baker, Montana - Submitted: Decided: Filed : JAN 14 9976 November 12, 1975 J N 1 4 1976 A M r . J u s t i c e Gene B . Daly d e l i v e r e d t h e Opinion o f t h e Court. T h i s i s 'an a p p e a l from a judgment o f t h e d i s t r i c t c o n s t r u i n g t h e terms c o u r t , C a r t e r County, s i t t i n g w i t h o u t a o f a d i v o r c e agreement e n t i t l e d "PROPERTY SETTLEMENT", t h e t e r m s o f which were i n c o r p o r a t e d i n t h e d e c r e e of d i v o r c e . On September 27, 1960, E s t h e r F l a s t e d and Merle F l a s ted were d i v o r c e d . I n t h a t d e c r e e t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t found t h a t Merle and E s t h e r had e n t e r e d i n t o a w r i t t e n p r o p e r t y s e t t l e m e n t . The c o u r t decreed : "* * ik t h a t t h e Court a d o p t s t h e p r o p e r t y s e t t l e m e n t agreement and t h a t t h e p l a i n t i f f [ E s t h e r ] i s allowed t h e sum o f $250.00 a month f o r h e r s u p p o r t commencing 9 ; " September 1, 1960, a s alimony * *. The r e m a i n i n g p o r t i o n o f t h e d e c r e e merely r e i t e r a t e d t h e terms o f t h e agreement. Inasmuch a s t h e wording o f t h a t agreement i s t h e b a s i s f o r t h e a c t i o n now under c o n s i d e r a t i o n , we s e t f o r t h t h e agreement in full: "This agreement between E s t h e r F l a s t e d and Merle F l a s ted : SSETH : " A s a p r o p e r t y s e t t l e m e n t t h e Defendant a g r e e s t o pay t o t h e P l a i n t i f f t h e sum o f $250.00 a month commencing September 1, 1960, f o r a t e r m o f 20 y e a r s a s alimony, r e g a r d l e s s of t h e s t a t u t e s and whether she remarries o r t h e Defendant's death, with t h e f i r s t t h r e e ( 3 ) y e a r s of t h e monthly payments payable i n advance f o r t h w i t h i n t h e lump sum o f $9,000. I n a d d i t i o n , t h e P l a i n t i f f i s t o r e c e i v e one h a l f o f a l l income from any o i l o r m i n e r a l l e a s e s i n c l u d i n g r o y a l t y , bonus, and r e n t a l s from r e a l e s t a t e s t a n d i n g o f r e c o r d i n t h e d e f e n d a n t ' s name. "1n a d d i t i o n , IT I S FURTHER AGREED t h a t t h e d e f e n d a n t s h a l l d e l i v e r t o t h e P l a i n t i f f t h e p o s s e s s i o n , on o r bef o r e October 1 0 , 1960, c e r t a i n p e r s o n a l p r o p e r t y b e l o n g i n g t o t h e P l a i n t i f f c o n s i s t i n g o f : Dishes, Silverware, L i n e n s , T e l e v i s i o n s e t , and b r i c - a - b r a c , c h o i c e o f any bed and c h a i r . A f t e r t h e lump sum payment t h e $250.00 a month payments t o commence October 1, 1963 and on t h e f i r s t day o f e a c h month t h e r e a f t e r , and "IT I S FURTHER AGREED t h a t t h e payments h e r e i n provided s h a l l b e a l i e n upon any r e a l e s t a t e o f r e cord i n t h e name of t h e ~ e f e n d a n t" . Merle, t h e husband, abided by t h e terms of t h e agreement up t o t h e time E s t h e r , t h e w i f e , d i e d on A p r i l 23, 1971. Since then Merle has ceased making any i n s t a l l m e n t o r p e r i o d i c payments. E l l a Jones, s i s t e r of E s t h e r F l a s t e d , was appointed a d m i n i s t r a t r i x of E s t h e r ' s e s t a t e . E l l a commenced t h i s a c t i o n claiming t h e e s t a t e was e n t i t l e d t o r e c e i v e E s t h e r ' s i n t e r e s t under t h e above agreement. The a d m i n i s t r a t r i x contends t h a t t h e agreement: (1) conveys an undivided one-half ownership i n a l l mineral r i g h t s h e l d by t h e F l a s t e d s ' a t t h e time of t h e d i v o r c e i n 1960; and (2) i s a c o n t r a c t t o g i v e t h e divorced w i f e an amount e q u a l t o one-half of t h e v a l u e o f t h e F l a s t e d p r o p e r t y a t t h e time of t h e d i v o r c e and i s t h e r e f o r e n o t terminable upon Esther's d e a t h b u t i s now payable t o E s t h e r ' s e s t a t e . Defendant Merle contends t h a t t h e agreement was merely an agreement t o provide support o r alimony f o r h i s ex-wife and h i s o b l i g a t i o n s under t h e c o n t r a c t terminated when t h e o b j e c t of t h e support became deceased. A f t e r t r i a l , t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t e n t e r e d t h e s e conclusions o f law: 1 That t h e alimony p r o v i s i o n contained i n t h e agreement i s a c o n t r a c t u a l and i n t e g r a l p a r t of t h e agreement a r i s i n g from claims of t h e p a r t i e s a t t h e time of d i v o r c e , and t h e same cannot be ignored o r modified without t h e consent of t h e p a r t i e s t h e r e t o . "11. That t h e words, ' a s alimony' were intended t o cover t h e contingency of E s t h e r F l a s t e d ' s d e a t h , s p e c i f i c r e f e r e n c e t o t h a t contingency having n o t otherwise been s p e l l e d o u t i n t h e agreement. "111. That t h e b e n e f i t s c o n f e r r e d upon E s t h e r F,lasted by t h e agreement and d e c r e e of d i v o r c e were f o r h e r support u n t i l h e r d e a t h , o r f o r a period o f twenty y e a r s , whichever occurred f i r s t . "IV. That t h e phrase ' r e g a r d l e s s of s t a t u t e s ' i s n o t i n c o n s i s t e n t w i t h t h e p r o v i s i o n made by t h e p a r t i e s and t h e d i v o r c e d e c r e e f o r support of E s t h e r Flasted. "1 1, While t h e agreement r e c i t e s t h a t i t c o n s t i t u t e s a 1 p r o p e r t y s e t t l e m e n t , ' t h e p r o v i s i o n s contained t h e r e i n r e f e r only t o m a t t e r s concerning E s t h e r ~ l a s t e d ' ssupport. This same o b j e c t i v e i s a l s o expressed i n t h e complaint and d e c r e e f i l e d i n t h e d i vorce a c t i o n . The Court concludes t h a t t h e l a b e l 1 property settlement' must y i e l d t o t h e e x p r e s s i o n s v a r i o u s l y claimed and made f o r s u p p o r t of E s t h e r Flasted. "VI. That t h e p r o v i s i o n s g i v i n g E s t h e r F l a s t e d oneh a l f of t h e income from o i l and mineral l e a s e s does n o t convey a f e e t i t l e t o m i n e r a l s , b u t a s s i g n e d o n l y what t h e agreement p r o v i d e s , a one-half i n t e r e s t i n t h e income, and t h a t t h i s was intended a s a d d i t i o n a l support f o r E s t h e r F l a s t e d d u r i n g h e r l i f e time, b u t n o t t o exceed twenty y e a r s . r r ~ T hw r e f o r e , I t Is Hereby Adjudged and Decreed ~ e "I. That t h e p l a i n t i f f t a k e n o t h i n g by h e r complaint. "2. That t h e defendant have h i s c o s t s . "3. That t h e i n t e r e s t of E s t h e r F l a s t e d of mineral income from d e f e n d a n t ' s p r o p e r t y provided f o r i n t h e annexed agreement terminated on h e r death and a s of A p r i l 23, 1971. "4. That t h e o b l i g a t i o n of support of Merle K. F l a s t e d toward E s t h e r F l a s t e d terminated on h e r d e a t h , A p r i l 23, 1971." P l a i n t i f f f i l e d exceptions t o t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t ' s f i n d i n g s of f a c t and c o n c l u s i o n s of law. The e x c e p t i o n s were disallowed except f o r t h e c o r r e c t i o n of a minor e r r o r and p l a i n t i f f appealed t o t h i s Court from t h e f i n a l judgment. The i s s u e p r e s e n t e d f o r review i s whether t h e above quoted agreement passed permanent and c o n t i n u i n g p r o p e r t y r i g h t s t o t h e ex-wife E s t h e r o r gave E s t h e r only alimony r i g h t s t e r m i n a t i n g upon h e r d e a t h . A t t h e o u t s e t , we n o t e i n examining t h e agreement of t h e p a r t i e s , t h e language of 17 Am.JurS2d, C o n t r a c t s , $ 5 242,245, pp. * ": f f : I t must be construed and enforced according t o t h e terms employed, and a c o u r t h a s no r i g h t t o i n t e r p r e t t h e agreement a s meaning something d i f f e r e n t from what t h e p a r t i e s intended a s expressed by t h e language t h e y saw f i t t o employ. 9 f: : * * t h e o b j e c t t o be a t t a i n e d i n c o n s t r u i n g a c o n t r a c t i s t o a s c e r t a i n t h e meaning and i n t e n t of t h e p a r t i e s a s expressed i n t h e language used and t o g i v e e f f e c t t o such i n t e n t i f i t does n o t c o n f l i c t w i t h any r u l e of law, good morals, o r p u b l i c p o l i c y . 11 ": 9 I n r e g a r d t o t h e o i l l e a s e s t h e a d m i n i s t r a t r i x contends t h a t e x h i b i t s and testimony b e f o r e t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t showing t h a t E s t h e r signed a t l e a s t t h r e e o i l and gas l e a s e s and t h e .c+ f a c t t h a t she had r e c e i v e d r e n t a l s on t h e s e l e a s e s p o i n t s t o a c o n c l i ~ s i o nt h a t 14erle and E s t h e r by t h e i r conduct i n t e r p r e t e d t h e agreement a s conveying an undivided one-half i n t e r e s t i n t h e mineral r i g h t s . l l e r l e ' s testimony on t h i s p o i n t i s t o t h e e f f e c t t h a t E s t h e r " d i d n ' t have t o s i g n them. d i d n ' t sign. II There was a l o t of them she I t was never shown t h a t E s t h e r signed leases. The f a c t t h a t E s t h e r r e c e i v e d r e n t s from t h e l e a s e s i n d i c a t e s n o t h i n g more than t h a t t h e terms of t h e agreement were being abided b y - - i t i n d i c a t e s no proof of ownership. I n any c a s e , t h i s i s n o t s u f f i c i e n t t o t r a n s f e r t h e claimed i n t e r e s t t o t h e divorced w i f e . I n Hochsprung v. Stevenson, 82 Mont. 222, 234, 266 P. 406, t h i s Court observed: II I t i s a s a g e n e r a l r u l e n e c e s s a r y t h a t a deed c o n t a i n o p e r a t i v e words of g r a n t ? it , tha.t a ; deed without words of conveyance p a s s e s no t i t l e i; ' ;'c. and t h a t , i f an instrument has no words , of conveyance, t h e c o u r t s have no r i g h t t o put them i n by i n t e r p r e t a t i o n 9;. The i n t e n t i o n of t h e g r a n t o r i n a deed i s t o be gathered from a c o n s i d e r a t i o n of t h e e n t i r e i n s t r u m e n t , t a k i n g i n t o c o n s i d e r a t i o n a l l of i t s p r o v i s i o n s , and every p a r t must be given e f f e c t i f r e a s o n a b l y p r a c t i c a b l e and c o n s i s t e n t w i t h i t s e v i d e n t purpose and o p e r a t i o n , I n o t , indeed a s i t i s presented i n p a r t i c u l a r sent e n c e s o r paragraphs, b u t according t o i t s e f f e c t when viewed a s an e n t i r e t y . ' (R. M. Cobban Realt): Co. v. Donlan, 5 1 Mont. 58, 149 Pac. 484 9; 9; f : . ) * * Taking t h i s agreement by i t s f o u r c o r n e r s , we do n o t f i n d e i t h e r words o r meaning evidencing an i n t e n t t o convey an undivided one-half i n t e r e s t i n mineral r i g h t s . R a t h e r , t h e language i s c l e a r and unambiguous--the ex-wife was t o r e c e i v e one-half t h e income from t h e mineral r e n t a l s f o r h e r support and n o t t o exceed 20 y e a r s . The a d m i n i s t r a t r i x f u r t h e r contends t h a t (1) t h e t i t l e of t h e agreement, i . e . , It "PROPERTY SETTLEMENT", (2) t h e phrase a s a p r o p e r t y s e t t l e m e n t " i n t h e f i r s t s e n t e n c e , (3) t h e phrase " r e g a r d l e s s of t h e s t a t u t e s o r whether she r e m a r r i e s o r t h e d e f e n d a n t ' s death", and (4) t h e f a c t t h a t t h e payments t o t a l $60,000 o v e r a 20 y e a r p e r i o d ($60,000 a l l e g e d l y b e i n g one-half t h e v a l u e of t h e F l a s t e d p r o p e r t y a t t h e time of t h e d i v o r c e ) a l l taken t o g e t h e r l e a d t o t h e conclusion t h a t t h e agreement i s a d i v i s i o n of p r o p e r t y , a p r o p e r t y s e t t l e m e n t , and n o t merely an agreement f o r support. There i s a d i s t i n c t i o n between a p r o p e r t y s e t t l e m e n t on t h e one hand, and a c o n t r a c t t o pay s t a t e d sums p e r i o d i c a l l y i n l i e u of alimony on t h e o t h e r hand. T h i s Court s t a t e d i n S t e f o n i c k v. S t e f o n i c k , 118 Mont. 486, 501, 167 P. 2d 848: II It i s w e l l s e t t l e d t h a t i n t h i s j u r i s d i c t i o n alimony i s no way a p r o p e r t y s e t t l e m e n t , b u t i s t h e p r o v i s i o n made f o r t h e support of t h e w i f e . ik This i s t r u e whether t h e alimony award i s made payable i n i n s t a l l ments o r i n a lump sum. Alimony payable i n i n s t a l l m e n t s i s p r e f e r r e d under under Montana c a s e law. S t e f o n i c k v. S t e f o n i c k , s u p r a ; S t a t e ex r e l . Tong v. D i s t r i c t Court, 109 Mont. 4.18, 96 P. 2d 918; B r i s t o l v. B r i s t o l , 65 Mont. 508, 211 P. 205; Lewis v. Lewis, 109 Mont. 42, 94 P.2d 211. O t h e o t h e r hand, a p r o p e r t y s e t t l e m e n t s e t t l e s p r o p e r t y n r i g h t s and may o r may n o t mention t h e a d d i t i o n a l item of alimony. I n 24 Am.Jur.2d, Divorce and S e p a r a t i o n , 5 883, p. 1003, i t i s stated: * 9: Commonly, such a s e t t l e m e n t (1) determines t h e r i g h t s of t h e p a r t i e s i n j o i n t l y owned p r o p e r t y and s t a t e s t h e d i s p o s i t i o n t o b e made of i t ; (2) s e t t l e s a l l c l a i m s of each spouse i n t h e p r o p e r t y of t h e o t h e r and c l a i m s of each spouse t o t i t l e t o p r o p e r t y h e l d i n t h e name of t h e o t h e r ; (3) mutually r e l e a s e s a l l p a s t and p r e s e n t claims except a s e s t a b l i s h e d by 'I* t h e agreement; (4) waives and r e l e a s e s a l l f u t u r e r i g h t s a s spouse i n t h e p r o p e r t y of each o t h e r ; (5) s u r r e n d e r s t h e r i g h t s of each on t h e d e a t h of t h e o t h e r , i n c l u d i n g r i g h t s of i n h e r i t a n c e , homestead, dower, and t h e r i g h t t o a d m i n i s t e r t h e e s t a t e of t h e o t h e r and t o have exemptions and allowances from t h e e s t a t e ; and (6) a g r e e s t h a t each w i l l e x e c u t e a l l documents n e c e s s a r y o r d e s i r a b l e t o c a r r y o u t t h e purposes of t h e agreement. I I The a d m i n i s t r a t r i x c i t e s Wa.shington v. Washington, 162 Mont. ,349, 512 P.2d 1300, a s a "case p r a c t i c a l l y on a l l f o u r s w i t h t h e i n s t a n t case." W do n o t a g r e e . e The s i x elements commonly found i n a p r o p e r t y s e t t l e m e n t agreement [24 Am.Jur.2d, Divorce and S e p a r a t i o n , 5 883, p. 10031 a r e a.11 i n Washington. I n c o n t r a s t , t h e "PROPERTY SETTLEMENT" agreement h e r e involved s a t i s f i e s none o f t h e s i x named elements. Except f o r t h e d i s p o s i t i o n of c e r t a i n minor p e r s o n a l p r o p e r t y , t h e r e i s no mention of t h e p a r t i e s f r i g h t s i n t h e r a n c h , l i v e s t o c k , house, the d e b t s , e t c . ~ o t w i t h s t a n d i n g /agreement's t i t l e , and n o t w i t h s t a n d i n g t h e a d m i n i s t r a t r i x ' s o t h e r c o n t e n t i o n s , t h i s agreement--by i t s o ~ mlanguage---does n o t t r a n s f e r any p r o p e r t y r i g h t s . It i s p u r e l y and simply a c o n t r a c t t o provide support f o r t h e ex-wife, t h e support t o c o n t i n u e f o r 20 y e a r s i f s h e should l i v e t h a t long. The c o n t r a c t t h e r e f o r e , by i t s very n a t u r e , i s p e r s o n a l t o t h e ex-wife and must t e r m i n a t e upon h e r d e a t h . The judgment of t h e

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.