ESTATE OF FENDER v MCKEON HERDEG

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

No. 13088 I N THE SUPREME C U T O THE STATE O M N A A OR F F OTN 1975 STATE O M N A A ex r e 1 LOUIS HERDEGEN, F OTN Relator, DISTRICT C U T O THE SEVENTEENTH JUDICIAL OR F F OTN, DISTRICT OF THE STATE O M N A A I N AND FOR THE C U T O PHILLIPS AND T E HONORABLE O NY F H T O A DIGNAN, PRESIDING J U D G E THEREOF, HMS Respondents. ORIGINAL PROCEEDING: Counsel of Record : For R e l a t o r : Burns, Solem & Mackenzie, Chinook, Montana William M. Solem argued and S t u a r t C. Mackenzie appeared, Chinook, Montana For Respondents: Granat and Cole, Malta, Montana Stephen Granat argued, Malta, Montana Submitted: Decided Filed : -q ( 2 7 .- , I , , * . kt September 24, 1975 : ~ C T I7 No. 13087 I N THE SUPREME COURT O THE STATE O M N A A F F OTN 1975 I n t h e Matter of t h e E s t a t e of A T U N. FENDER RH R LOUIS HERDEGEN, Appellant, WILLIS McKEON, Executor, Respondent. Appeal from: D i s t r i c t Court of t h e Seventeenth J u d i c i a l D i s t r i c t , Honorable Thomas Dignan, Judge p r e s i d i n g . Counsel of Record : For Appellant : Burns, Solem and Mackenzie, Chinook, Montana William Solem argued, and S t u a r t C. Mackenzie appeared, Chinook, Montana For Respondent: Granat and Cole, Malta, Montana Stephen Granat argued, Malta, Montana Submitted: September 24, 1975 ~ e c i d e d : QCP Filed: P i f d:L 1-7 i g d ~ PER CURIAM: W a r e h e r e c o n s i d e r i n g two c a s e s , b o t h concerning e ehe p r o b a t e of t h e e s t a t e of Arthur N . Fender, deceased. No. 13087 i s e n t i t l e d "Louis Herdegen, Appellant v. Willis EJIcI<eon, Executor, ~ e s p o n d e n t "which i s an a p p e a l from t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t of P h i l l i p s County. No. 13088 i s e n t i t l e d " S t a t e of Montana ex r e l . Louis Herdegen, R e l a t o r , v s . D i s t r i c t Court of t h e Seventeenth J u d i c i a l D i s t r i c t of t h e S t a t e of Montana, I n and For t h e County of P h i l l i p s and t h e Honorable Thomas Dignan, P r e s i d i n g Judge T h e r e o f , Respondent", an o r i g i n a l proceeding i n mandamus concerning t h e p r o b a t e of t h e w i l l t o r e q u i r e t h e d i s t r i c t judge t o honor an a f f i d a v i t of d i s q u a l i f i c a t i o n and c a l l i n a n o t h e r judge and t o s t a y t h e proceedings i n d i s t r i c t c o u r t c a u s e No. 2790, P h i l l i p s County, pending i n t h a t c o u r t . T h i s Court i n Cause No. 13088 on J u l y 1 8 , 1975, i s s u e d t h i s ord.er: 11 Counsel was heard ex p a r t e and t h e r e a f t e r an o r d e r was i s s u e d f o r an a d v e r s a r y h e a r i n g . A t t h e h e a r i n g Executor McKeon appeared by b r i e f and h i s c o u n s e l argued. Such h e a r i n g has been had, b r i e f s f i l e d by r e s p e c t i v e c o u n s e l who a l s o argued, t h e d i s t r i c t judge has f i l e d a memorandum, t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t f i l e s examined, and t h e m a t t e r taken under advisement. If There a r e two e s t a t e proceedings e n t i t l e d a l i k e , one b e i n g c a u s e 2789, t h e o t h e r 2790; we apply t h i s order t o both cases. 11 Having now considered t h e m a t t e r s involved i t a p p e a r s t h a t no purpose would be served by a r e c i t a t i o n of t h e f a c t s , t h e m a t t e r i s on a p p e a l and f o r now i t i s n e c e s s a r y t o p r e s e r v e t h e s t a t u s quo a s b e s t t h a t can be done and e x p e d i t e t h e a p p e a l proceedings so a f i n a l d e c i s i o n can be had. To t h i s end t h e Court ORDERS: "I. The Court d e c l i n e s t o i s s u e a w r i t of mandate. I1 2. The a f f i d a v i t s of d i s q u a l i f i c a t i o n a r e ordered s t r i c k e n . ( R e l a t o r f i l e d a n o t i c e of a p p e a l and t h e r e a f t e r f i l e d t h e a f f i d a v i t s of d i s q u a l i f i c a t i o n . Without extended d i s c u s s i o n h e r e t h i s p r a c t i c e cannot be approved.) "3. Both c a s e s h e r e t o f o r e r e f e r r e d t o a r e cons o l i d a t e d on a p p e a l f o r b r i e f i n g and argument. "4. W i l l i s M. IYlcI<eon, a s e x e c u t o r , i s named and made a respondent i n t h i s proceeding. "5. The d i s t r i c t c o u r t i s d i r e c t e d t o e n t e r an o r d e r suspending t h e e x e c u t o r ' s powers u n t i l t h e f u r t h e r o r d e r of t h e c o u r t . The d i s t r i c t c o u r t , under t h e emergency power "6. given i n s e c t i o n 91A-3-614, R.C.M. 1947, s h a l l a p p o i n t a s p e c i a l a d m i n i s t r a t o r whose powers s h a l l be l i m i t e d t o c o n s e r v a t i o n of t h e e s t a t e u n t i l f i n a l d i s p o s i t i o n of t h e appeal. "7. Since W i l l i s M. FfcKeon was named e x e c u t o r i n t h e w i l l a d m i t t e d t o p r o b a t e b u t now under a p p e a l , i n accord w i t h t h e i n t e n t of s e c t i o n 91A-3-615, R.C.M. 1947, t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t i s d i r e c t e d t o name him s p e c i a l a d m i n i s t r a t o r w i t h l i m i t e d powers. "8. To e x p e d i t e t h e a p p e a l , s i n c e t r a n s c r i p t s of t h e evidence p r e s e n t e d a t t h e h e a r i n g on admission of t h e a l l e g e d w i l l s a r e a v a i l a b l e t h e time f o r b r i e f i n g i s shortened a s f o l l o w s : a ) A p p e l l a n t ' s b r i e f t o be served and f i l e d w i t h i n 20 days from d a t e of t h i s o r d e r . b ) ~ e s p o n d e n t ' sb r i e f t o b e served and f i l e d w i t h i n 20 days from s e r v i c e of a p p e l l a n t ' s b r i e f . c ) A p p e l l a n t ' s r e p l y b r i e f t o then be s e r v e d and f i l e d w i t h i n 7 days. d ) The c a u s e w i l l be s e t f o r argument on t h e September Calendar of t h i s Court. " The m a t t e r involved h e r e i s a d e t e r m i n a t i o n of whether t h e f i r s t w i l l of Arthur N. Fender, executed on October 1 2 , 1972 and naming Willis McKeon a s e x e c u t o r , o r t h e second w i l l executed March 1 8 , 1975, naming Louis Herdegen a s e x e c u t o r , be a d m i t t e d t o probate. The r e c o r d r e v e a l s t h e s e f a c t s : O March 25, 1975, Arthur N. Fender d i e d a t t h e r a n c h of n h i s nephew Louis Herdegen. Herdegen i s t h e o n l y h e i r l i v i n g i n Montana and had helped loolc a f t e r h i s u n c l e d u r i n g h i s l a s t i l l n e s s . On March 2 7 , 1975, Herdegen f i l e d a p e t i t i o n f o r t h e p r o b a t e of a w i l l executed by h i s u n c l e on March 1 8 , 1975, r e q u e s t i n g t h a t he be named e x e c u t o r . T h i s w i l l was f i l e d i n t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t of t h e s e v e n t e e n t h j u d i c i a l d i s t r i c t , P h i l l i p s County and given c a u s e No. 2759. On t h e f o l l o w i n g d a y , March 28, 1975, W i l l i s McKeon, an a t t o r n e y i n M a l t a , f i l e d i n t h e same c o u r t a p e t i t i o n f o r p r o b a t e o f w i l l o f A. N . F e n d e r , e x e c u t e d on October 1 2 , 1972, and r e q u e s t i n g t h a t h e be a p p o i n t e d e x e c u t o r . g i v e n c a u s e No. 2790. That p e t i t i o n w a s The two w i l l s were i d e n t i c a l a s t o t h e d i s p o s i t i v e provisions, t h e only difference being t h e executor named. L o u i s Herdegen f i l e d o b j e c t i o n s t o t h e p r o b a t e of t h e w i l l o f f e r e d by F J i l l i s McKeon on t h e grounds t h a t i t was n o t t h e d e c e d e n t ' s l a s t w i l l , d e c e d e n t having e x e c u t e d a w i l l s u b s e q u e n t t o t h e one o f f e r e d by I4cKeon. McKeon f i l e d o b j e c t i o n s t o t h e p r o b a t e of t h e w i l l o f f e r e d by Herdegen on t h e grounds t h a t dec e d e n t a c t e d under d u r e s s , menace, f r a u d o r undue i n f l u e n c e a t t h e t i m e o f t h e e x e c u t i o n o f t h e w i l l and f u r t h e r upon t h e grounds t h a t t h e i n s t r u m e n t w a s n o t d u l y o r p r o p e r l y executed and a t t e s t e d a s r e q u i r e d by t h e laws of Montana. T h e r e a f t e r Herdegen f i l e d a motion t o d i s m i s s t h e p u r was p o r t e d c o n t e s t of t h e w i l l which h e l o f f e r i n g f o r p r o b a t e on t h e grounds t h a t McKeon was n o t a o f s e c t i o n 91-810, R.C.M. c o n t e s t such w i l l . 11 p e r s o n i n t e r e s t e d " w i t h i n t h e meaning 1947, and t h e r e f o r e l a c k e d s t a n d i n g t o The d i s t r i c t c o u r t n e v e r r u l e d on t h i s motion, b u t proceeded t o s e t b o t h p e t i t i o n s f o r a h e a r i n g on May 1 2 , 1975. Testimony was t a k e n and b r i e f s were f i l e d . IslcKeon was a l l o w e d t o a t t a c k t h e v a l i d i t y o f t h e w i l l o f f e r e d by Herdegen. A t t h e hearing t e s t i m o n y was t a k e n from f i v e w i t n e s s e s , i n c l u d i n g McKeon, which was reduced t o w r i t i n g and made p a r t o f t h e c o u r t r e c o r d . On June 1 9 , 1975, t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t judge i s s u e d a n o r d e r denying t h e p r o b a t e o f t h e L a s t W i l l and Testament o f A r t h u r N . Fender, o f f e r e d by Herdegen and a d m i t t e d t h e w i l l o f f e r e d by McKeon, d a t e d October 1 2 , 1972. The t r i a l c o u r t , a f t e r Herdegen a p p e a l e d t o t h i s Court f i l e d a memorandum d i r e c t e d t o t h i s Court f o r c o n s i d e r a t i o n i n deciding t h e cause. The memorandum d o e s n o t amount t o f i n d i n g s and w i l l n o t be c o n s i d e r e d . - 4 - Notices of a p p e a l were f i l e d June 2 3 , 1975 of t h e o r d e r denying p r o b a t e of t h e w i l l o f f e r e d by Herdegen, and t h e o r d e r admitt i n g t h e w i l l of October 1 2 , 1972, t o p r o b a t e and appointment of W i l l i s McKeon a s e x e c u t o r . S e v e r a l i s s u e s were s e t f o r t h and argued b u t we f i n d t h e c o n t r o l l i n g i s s u e t o be t h e f a i l u r e of t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t t o r u l e on t h e Ilerdegen motion t o d i s m i s s on t h e b a s i s of t h e f a c t W i l l i s NcKeon had no s t a n d i n g t o appear and c o n t e s t t h e w i l l o f f e r e d by Herdegen. This i s s u e was decided by t h i s Court i n H i l l v. D i s t r i c t Court, 126 Mont. 1, 4 , 5 , 242 P.2d 850. executed naming H i l l t h e e x e c u t o r . I n H i l l a w i l l was A second c o d i c i l named him e x e c u t o r , b u t under a t h i r d c o d i c i l t o t h e w i l l he was removed a s e x e c u t o r and one J . W. Rees was named s o l e e x e c u t o r . H i l l objected t o and opposed ~ e e s 'p e t i t i o n f o r p r o b a t e of t h e w i l l and t h e t h i r d c o d i c i l , c l a i m i n g t h a t t h e t e s t a t r i x wa,s incompetent when s h e made t h e t h i r d c o d i c i l naming Rees e x e c u t o r . Rees demurred t o H i l l ' s o b j e c t i o n s and t h e demurrer was s u s t a i n e d f o r t h e r e a s o n t h a t H i l l was n o t a "person i n t e r e s t e d " i n t h e e s t a t e having l e g a l c a p a c i t y t o c o n t e s t o r oppose t h e p r o b a t e . - H i l l appealed. T h i s Court i n H i l l c i t e d w i t h a p p r o v a l 57 Am.Jur., ! 798, pp. j l' Wills, 541, 542: Under s t a t u t e s which permit t h e c o n t e s t of w i l l s by persons i n t e r e s t e d o r c l a i m i n g t o b e i n t e r e s t e d i n t h e decedent's e s t a t e , the general r u l e i s t h a t a contestant must have some pecuniary o r b e n e f i c i a l i n t e r e s t i n t h e e s t a t e of t h e decedent t h a t i s d e t r i m e n t a l l y a f f e c t e d by t h e w i l l . Although t h e r i g h t t o maintain a w i l l c o n t e s t does n o t depend upon t h e e x t e n t o r p r o p o r t i o n of t h e c o n t e s t a n t ' s share i n the decedent's e s t a t e , o r t h e amount of t h e d e t r i m e n t s u f f e r e d by t h e c o n t e s t a n t , i t does depend upon t h e f a c t t h a t t h e c o n t e s t a n t may b e deprived by t h e w i l l of some i n t e r e s t of pecuniary v a l u e , worth, advantage, o r use i n t h e e s t a t e . The mere circums t a n c e t h a t a person may b e i n t e r e s t e d i n t h e a d m i n i s t r a t i o n , d i s t r i b u t i o n , o r p a r t i t i o n of an e s t a t e i s n o t s u f f i c i e n t i f he w i l l n o t s u f f e r any d e t r i m e n t from t h e w i l l . As s t a t e d , an i n t e r e s t i n t h e p r o p e r t y of t h e e s t a t e d e t r i m e n t a l l y a f f e c t e d by t h e w i l l i s t h e foundat i o n of t h e r i g h t t o c o n t e s t i t . " F u r t h e r i n H i l l , t h e Court c i t e d I n Re ~ ' ~ r i e n E s t a t e , ' 11 1 Sometimes i t happens t h a t a l a t e r w i l l makes no change a t a l l i n t h e d i s p o s i t i o n of t h e t e s t a t o r ' s e s t a t e , b u t merely nominates a d i f f e r e n t e x e c u t o r . I n such a c a s e , why should t h e e s t a t e be burdened by w i l l c o n t e s t proceedings f o r t h e s o l e purpose of determining which of t h e two r i v a l c l a i m a n t s should be permitted t o a c t a s executor? - "'1t i s o u r c o n c l u s i o n t h a t ;k 9; " t h e weight of a u t h o r i t y . ..... and t h e b e t t e r r e a s.o n i n g f a. , r t h e r u l e t h a t a . . vo c o n t e s t cannot be i n i t i a t e d by an e x e c u ~ o rnamed i n a - .. p r i o r w i l l . "' (Emphasis s u p p l i e d ) . T I n c o n c l u s i o n t h e Court i n -7 i l l H stated: II Since i f t h e r e were no w i l l , H i l l would n o t succeed i n some d e g r e e t o t h e d e c e d e n t ' s e s t a t e , he i s n o t a person who may appear and c o n t e s t t h e w i l l . "The lower c o u r t , t h e r e f o r e , p r o p e r l y s u s t a i n e d ~ e e s ' s demurrer. I I The i s s u e was r a i s e d a g a i n i n E s t a t e of Maricich, 140 Mont. 319, 321, 371 P.2d 354. The Court s t a t e d : I1 The a p p e l l a n t i n i t i a l l y r a i s e d two q u e s t i o n s : (1) Can a named e x e c u t o r i n a p r i o r w i l l m a i n t a i n a w i l l c o n t e s t o f a subsequently executed w i l l ? As t o t h i s p o i n t he concedes t h a t t h i s q u e s t i o n h a s p r e v i o u s l y been b e f o r e t h i s c o u r t and decided adv e r s e l y t o h i s p o s i t i o n i n S t a t e ex r e l . H i l l v. D i s t r i c t Court, 126 Mont. 1, 242 P. 2d 850, 31 A.L.R.2d 749, and t h e m a t t e r i s now s t a r e d e c i s i s 9 : +c*tr : ; See a l s o E s t a t e of French, 137 Mont. 228, 351 P.2d 548. It i s c l e a r t h a t 1.fcICeon had no s t a n d i n g t o appear and c o n t e s t t h e Herdegen w i l l and Herdegen's motion t o d i s m i s s should have been g r a n t e d . I.ZcKeon, i n h i s b r i e f , a r g u e s t h a t he d i d n o t appear and c o n t e s t t h e w i l l o f f e r e d by Herdegen b u t merely o f f e r e d t h e e a r l i e r w i l l f o r the c o u r t ' s consideration. argument. The r e c o r d c l e a r l y i n d i c a t e s : 1) There was a c o n t e s t of t h e Herdegen w i l l f i l e d pursuant t o s e c t i o n 91-901, R.C.M. demanded. W f i n d no m e r i t t o t h i s e 1947, i n which a t r i a l j u r y was 2) Q u e s t i o r s of f a c t were r a i s e d r e g a r d i n g t h e a t t e s t a - t i o n of t h e Herdegen w i l l by t h e c o n t e s t . 3) A p r o p e r l y f i l e d motion t o d i s m i s s , t o g e t h e r w i t h s u p p o r t i n g memorandums was f i l e d , and n o t a c t e d on. 4) McKeon was a l l o w e d t o p a r t i c i p a t e i n t h e p r o c e e d i n g s . R e g a r d l e s s o f what t h e May 1 2 , 1975 h e a r i n g was c a l l e d , i t was i n r e a l i t y a w i l l c o n t e s t w i t h o u t p r o p e r p r o c e d u r e s b e i n g followed. Herdegen w a s d e n i e d t h e r i g h t t o have t h e i s s u e s r a i s e d by i4cKeon t r i e d b e f o r e a j u r y . The o r d e r of t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t a d m i t t i n g t o p r o b a t e t h e L a s t W i l l and Testament o f A r t h u r N. F e n d e r , d a t e d October 1 2 , 1972, and a p p o i n t i n g W i l l i s 14. TMcKeon, e x e c u t o r , i s set a s i d e and v a c a t e d , t o g e t h e r w i t h t h e memorandum o f t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t c o v e r i n g r e a s o n s f o r n o t a d m i t t i n g t h e second w i l l . I t i s o r d e r e d t h a t t h e L a s t W i l l and Testament o f A r t h u r 1 . F e n d e r , d a t e d ?.larch 1 8 , 1975, a p p o i n t i n g Lrxlis Herdegen, e x e c u t o r , S i be admitted t o probate. It i s f u r t h e r ordered t h a t t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t w i l l hold a h e a r i n g t o d e t e r m i n e p r o p e r and r e a s o n a b l e c h a r g e s f o r c o s t s and f e e s . M. Chief J u s t i c e James T . H a r r i s o n t o o k no p a r t i n r t h i s opinion.

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.