ESTATE OF GORDON
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
No. 80-239 I N T E SUPREME COURT O THE STATE O M N A A H F F OTN 1981 I N THE MATTER OF THE ESTATE O F FRANCIS A. GORDON, a / k / a FRANCIS GORDON, a p r o t e c t e d p e r s o n . Appeal from: D i s t r i c t Court of t h e F i f t h J u d i c i a l D i s t r i c t , I n and f o r t h e County o f B e a v e r h e a d , The Honorable Frank B l a i r , Judge p r e s i d i n g . Counsel o f Record: For Appellant: Hooks a n d Budewitz, Townsend, Montana F o r Respondent : R i c h a r d J. L l e w e l l y n , H e l e n a , Montana W. G. G i l b e r t , 111, D i l l o n , Montana S u b m i t t e d on B r i e f s : Decided : dy# Filed : 4 198; March 25, 1 9 8 1 Jubl 4 1981 Mr. Justice Gene B. Daly delivered the Opinion of the Court. This case involves appeals by all parties involved in these proceedings. Albert and Emily Gordon, parents of Francis Gordon and one time conservators of his estate, appeal from a finding and order of contempt entered by the Beaverhead County District Court (Gordon appeal). An attorney, W. G. Gilbert 111, acting in behalf of Francis Gordon, appeals the court's order of a new trial to redetermine the amount of attorney fees due from his representation of Francis Gordon (Gilbert appeal). A third appeal has been filed by Richard Llewellyn, the current conservator of Francis Gordon's estate. explained This appeal is in the conservator's brief as being brought in opposition to the order for a new trial regarding Gilbert's attorney fees and in support of the court's contempt order. In 1976 Albert and Emily Gordon were appointed by the District Court to act as conservators of the estate of their son, Francis Gordon. In March 1978 Francis Gordon petitioned the District Court and demanded that Albert and Emily, as conservators, file a sworn accounting showing all receipts and disbursements of the conservatorship. Albert and Emily failed to appear at the hearing on the petition whereupon the court ordered the accounting be filed within ten days and that the conservators appear before the court and show cause why they should not be removed from their position. A show cause hearing was held on July 25, 1978. Subsequently, the District Court, on September 26, 1978, entered findings of fact, conclusions of law and an order removing Albert and Emily as conservators. The court further ordered accurate t h e Gordons t o f i l e a accounting conservatorship; conservator) to of all monies pay the clerk within ten days full, received of the complete during court certain sums and their (interim of money i m p r o p e r l y w i t h h e l d from o r c h a r g e d t o F r a n c i s Gordon; and t o pay for attorney fees F r a n c i s Gordon. t o W. The amount G. of Gilbert 111, a t t o r n e y attorney f e e s were t o be determined a t a l a t e r hearing. On against December the rendered 18, 1978, Gilbert of Francis Gordon expenses incurred estate and F r a n c i s Gordon. in filed for the two legal claims services representation These c l a i m s t o t a l e d $4,721.17. of Failing t o h a v e t h e c l a i m s s a t i s f i e d w i t h i n s i x t y d a y s , G i l b e r t f i l e d a. motion on J u n e 18, 1979, to compel payment by appointed temporary c o n s e r v a t o r , t h e m o t i o n was s c h e d u l e d I r e n e Newlon. t h e newly H e a r i n g on f o r J u l y 1 0 , 1 9 7 9 , and t h e c o u r t d i r e c t e d t h a t n o t i c e o f t h e h e a r i n g be g i v e n t o A l b e r t and Emily Gordon. A copy o f t h e m o t i o n t o compel and o r d e r d i r e c t i n g n o t i c e t o be g i v e n w e r e d u l y s e r v e d on J u n e 1 9 , 1979. A t t h e scheduled h e a r i n g , G i l b e r t appeared p e r s o n a l l y and I r e n e N e w l o n ' s a t t o r n e y a p p e a r e d on h e r b e h a l f . t h e Gordons nor their attorney made an Neither appearance. The p a r t i e s present a t the hearing did not question or contest the claim for attorney fees. As a. r e s u l t , the District C o u r t e n t e r e d an o r d e r on J u l y 1 7 , 1 9 7 9 , a p p r o v i n g G i l b e r t ' s c l a i m and d i r e c t i n g t h e c o n s e r v a t o r t o o b t a i n t h e m o n i e s f o r payment from A l b e r t and Emily Gordon i n a c c o r d a n c e w i t h i t s o r d e r of September 26, 1978. was p r e p a r e d , signed and A n o t i c e of e n t r y of f i l e d by G i l b e r t . judgment On J u l y 25, 1 9 7 9 , t h e c l e r k o f t h e c o u r t s e r v e d by m a i l t h e n o t i c e and a copy of the order on all parties, including Albert and Emily Gordon. R i c h a r d L l e w e l l y n was appointed special conservator o f t h e e s t a t e of F r a n c i s Gordon i n S e p t e m b e r 1 9 7 9 . In early J a n u a r y 1 9 8 0 , he f i l e d a p e t i t i o n r e q u e s t i n g t h a t A l b e r t and Emily Gordon b e h e l d i n c o n t e m p t o f c o u r t f o r t h e i r a l l e g e d failure to comply with September 26, 1978. the Court's order of An o r d e r t o show c a u s e was d u l y i s s u e d t o t h e G o r d o n s and their current response t o t h e p e t i t i o n , f i l e d a n o t i o n t o quash same t i m e , District a t t o r n e y of record. In t h e G o r d o n s , on J a n u a r y 3 1 , 1 9 8 0 , the order t o show c a u s e . At the t h e y f i l e d a m o t i o n f o r a new t r i a l w i t h r e s p e c t t o t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t ' s o r d e r of J u l y 1 7 , 1979, wherein t h e c o u r t upheld G i l b e r t ' s c l a i m f o r $4,721.17 hearing A 1980. on t h e m o t i o n s was On March 1 3 , 1980, in attorney fees. held on F e b r u a r y 26, t h e D i s t r i c t Court granted the G o r d o n s ' m o t i o n f o r a new t r i a l and e n t e r e d a n o r d e r s e t t i n g aside the award of attorney fees t o Gilbert. The court s t a t e d t h e award was t o be v a c a t e d b e c a u s e t h e judgment was rendered under a "mistake of fact, inadvertence and excusable n e g l e c t i n t h e absence of s a i d former c o n s e r v a t o r s [Albert notice and to Emily them Gordon] scarcely . . . advising and them because of of a anything frail to be h e a r d e x c e p t 'payment o f b i l l s . ' " On A p r i l 8 , 1 9 8 0 , t h e t r i a l j u d g e h e l d t h e G o r d o n s i n contempt of court for 26, 1978, o r d e r . pay $ 6 , 8 5 8 . 9 0 the September f a i l i n g t o comply w i t h i t s S e p t e m b e r The c o u r t f u r t h e r d i r e c t e d t h e G o r d o n s t o t o t h e clerk of 1978 order. the c o u r t i n accordance with From these orders, Gilbert, L l e w e l l y n and t h e Gordons a p p e a l . Concerning the "Gilbert" appeal, the sole issue r a i s e d is whether t h e D i s t r i c t Court e r r e d i n g r a n t i n g t h e m o t i o n f o r a new t r i a l . I n t h i s regard, G i l b e r t contends t h e c o u r t was i n e r r o r b e c a u s e t h e G o r d o n s , i n b r i n g i n g t h e m o t i o n f o r new t r i a l , f a i l e d t o comply w i t h t h e f o l l o w i n g r e q u i r e m e n t s o f R u l e 5 9 ( b ) , M.R.Civ.P.: "Time f o r m o t i o n . A m o t i o n f o r a new t r i a l s h a l l be s e r v e d n o t l a t e r t h a n 10 d a y s a f t e r service of notice of the e n t r y of the judgment " . Here, the notice of entry of judgment, although p r e p a r e d and s i g n e d by G i l b e r t , was s e r v e d on t h e Gordons by t h e c l e r k of t h e c o u r t on J u l y 2 5 , 1 9 7 9 . new trial, counsel however, until Certainly, was January this not filed 1980, period is far or some in The m o t i o n f o r a s e r v e d on o p p o s i n g six months excess of later. the rule l i m i t a t i o n of t e n d a y s . The Gordons c o n t e n d t h e i r m o t i o n was t i m e l y filed. In support of t h i s contention, they argue t h a t since G i l b e r t p r e p a r e d , s i g n e d and g a v e t h e n o t i c e o f e n t r y o f judgment t o the clerk for service, t h e n o t i c e i s d e f i c i e n t and c a n n o t s e r v e t o s t a r t t h e l i m i t a t i o n p e r i o d c o n t a i n e d i n Rule 59, M.R.Civ.P. W e must d i s a g r e e . T h e r e i s no r e q u i r e m e n t i n t h e Montana R u l e s o f C i v i l P r o c e d u r e t h a t t h e n o t i c e o f e n t r y o f judgment b e s i g n e d by t h e c l e r k of t h e c o u r t o r t h a t t h e n o t i c e be p r e p a r e d and g i v e n t o t h e c l e r k by t h e " p r e v a i l i n g p a r t y " a s a s s e r t e d by t h e Gordons i n t h e i r b r i e f . The o n l y r e q u i r e m e n t i s t h a t upon e n t r y o f t h e o r d e r o r judgment by t h e c o u r t , t h e c l e r k s h a l l s e r v e by m a i l n o t i c e o f t h e e n t r y upon e a c h p a r t y t o t h e proceeding and s h a l l make n o t e in t h e docket of the S e e Rule 77 ( d ) , M.R.Civ.P. mailing. satisfied, we and find no T h i s r e q u i r e m e n t was deficiencies in the notice r e c e i v e d by t h e G o r d o n s . This Court has s t r i c t l y enforced t h e time l i m i t a t i o n s s e t f o r t h i n R u l e 5 9 , M.R.Civ.P. v. D i s t r i c t Court ( 1 9 7 8 ) , 1 7 7 Mont. Paint Contractors of the Thirteenth 5 0 , 579 P.2d (1978), S e e P i e r c e P a c k i n g Company 1081. W will e -SQ-l 1 District Se9 1 760; K e l l y v . Ehe3+ 1 7 5 Mont. A r m s t r o n g v . High C r e s t O i l , I n c . P.2d Judicial 440, 574 & P.2d he4A 1002; ( 1 9 7 4 ) , 164 Mont. 1 8 7 , 520 not disregard those requirements and m u s t now f i n d t h a t t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t e r r e d i n g r a n t i n g t h e G o r d o n s l m o t i o n and o r d e r i n g a new t r i a l . I n r e g a r d t o t h e Gordon a p p e a l , solely the r e s u l t of the April w e n o t e t h a t i t is 1980 judgment finding the Gordons i n c o n t e m p t f o r f a i l i n g t o a b i d e by t h e d i r e c t i v e s o f a c o u r t o r d e r e n t e r e d on S e p t e m b e r 2 6 , 1 9 7 8 . I n defense o f t h e c o n t e m p t c h a r g e , A l b e r t and Emily Gordon c o n t e n d t h a t c e r t a i n f i n d i n g s and c o n c l u s i o n s o f t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t made i n conjunction with the p r i o r court order a r e not supported by substantial credible evidence. The Gordons further a s s e r t t h a t d u r i n g t h e h e a r i n g on t h e c o n t e m p t p e t i t i o n , t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t f a i l e d t o c o n s i d e r v a r i o u s a g r e e m e n t s which p u r p o r t e d t o r e l e a s e a l l r i g h t s , c l a i m s and c a u s e s o f a c t i o n F r a n c i s Gordon had a g a i n s t them. The Gordons t h e n c o n c l u d e that not the contempt order should C o u r t s h o u l d now m o d i f y t h a t o r d e r 1978, o r d e r s o a s t o be have and issued and t h e September this 26, i n accordance with t h e submitted record. W acknowledge t h e Gordons' e c o n t e n t i o n s but conclude t h a t t h e y h a v e been i m p r o p e r l y p r e s e n t e d on a p p e a l . Section 3-1-523, is p e r t i n e n t MCA, i n t h i s r e g a r d and s p e c i f i c a l l y provides: "Judgment and o r d e r s i n c o n t e m p t cases f i n a l . The judgment and o r d e r s o f t h e c o u r t o r j u d q e made i n c a s e s o f c o n t e m p t a r e f i n a l and conclusive. T h e r e i s no a p p e a l , b u t t h e a c t i o n s o f a d i s t r i c t c o u r t o r j u d g e c a n be r e v i e w e d on a w r i t o f c e r t i o r a r i b y t h e s u p r e m e c o u r t o r a j u d g e t h e r e o f and t h e a c t i o n of a j u s t i c e of t h e peace o r o t h e r c o u r t of l i m i t e d j u r i s d i c t i o n by t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t o r j u d g e o f t h e c o u n t y i n which s u c h j u s t i c e or judge of such c o u r t of l i m i t e d jurisdiction resides." If the propriety of Gordons the wish District this Court Court's to consider regarding action the the c o n t e m p t p r o c e e d i n g s and t o r e v i e w a n y u n d e r l y i n g s u p p o r t i v e findings, conclusions or orders, be it w i l l necessary to f i l e an a p p r o p r i a t e w r i t of review. For the reasons challenging the dismissed. Furthermore, stated District herein Court's the order of Gordon appeal, contempt, is t h e o r d e r g r a n t i n g t h e Gordons a new t r i a l is v a c a t e d , and t h e judgment e n t e r e d on J u l y 1 7 , 1979, approving Gilbert's a f f irmed. W e concur: J claim f// r g attorney fees is
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.
