Estate of Goick
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
NO. 95-228 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA 1996 tJi\pJ ! : g i\!yJ IN RE ESTATE OF MICHAEL WILLIAM GOICK, Deceased. APPEAL FROM: District Court of the Seventeenth Judicial District, In and for the County of Blaine, The Honorable Nat Allen, Judge presiding. COUNSEL OF RECORD: For Appellants: Dan L. Spoon and Patrick J. McHugh, Spoon & Gordon, Missoula, Montana R-p, For Respondent: Keith Martin Guardian A. Maristuen, Bosch, Kuhr, & Kaze, Havre, Montana Ad Litem: David Havre, G. Rice, Montana Attorney Submitted at Law, on Briefs: Decided: Filed: Dugdale, December 7, 1995 January 9, 1996 Justice Charles This is District of E. Erdmann delivered an appeal Court, Barbara of Blaine Goick, representative an order County, of appellants' Seventeenth Judicial summary judgment in Barbara as personal Michael motion a supervised Goick's agreement between Barbara and denying the of the Court. granting appointing of decedent distribution the opinion estate, approving and the decedent's to compel favor settlement the children, of the case. We affirm. We restate 1. Do lack sister, judgment 3. as follows: appellants, the District purposes Court favor of intestate Did Barbara related costs when that and to this it granted summary she was the surviving err when it estate? the District Is brother, succession? Court Court to compel settlement 5. mother, of decedent's representative 4. err concluding Did the District personal decedent's to appeal? in Barbara's spouse for motion the standing Did 2. the issues err in appointed denying the Barbara as appellants' of the case? entitled to an award of attorney fees and and the appeal? FACTS Michael marriage a petition proceeding Michael and produced for Barbara three Goick were A dissolution. and Barbara agreed for to in 1981 In December 1990, Michael children. was scheduled married hearing April 25, all issues 2 in 1991. except the At filed dissolution that the hearing, division of household goods, The District evidence which the parties Court Judge then to support Following Barbara a decree the hearing, and Michael The parties personal property by the District Court Judge wrote the was his settlement intended 1992, Court. hold the attorney to which occurred in issued. Michael the death, Barbara reason that issued Michael divorce died dismissing to dismiss determination representative (PR). surviving spouse Michael's mother, and In to sign the for and that he On January agreement. 7, withdrawal of No further decree 1992. them that proceedings or order was Two days after proceeding divorce his for the an order was 1992, action. filed of heirs, the was brother, the the District 25 hearing On December 3, On December 7, 1992, Barbara of intestacy, 25, informing and no final on November 30, the divorce on April had refused consented. had died. her 1991, an application action moved to Michael that to divide she stated had been dissolved parties filed they were. of the household In the motion, at the April parties that a motion On December 19, negotiated the Michael's attorney filed a memorandum to the attorneys agreement to Barbara marriage understanding sufficient asked whether and he responded to agree on the division was that two weeks. present the judge was apparently of the marriage. 1991, within of divorce. on December 25, 1991, understanding it had the parties were divorced were unable goods and, were to settle a petition and appointment she claimed petition, entitled and sister 3 for to an (the adjudication of personal she was the appointment appellants) as PR. filed an objection to the petition, but spouse, guardian rather claiming the ex-wife ad litem for the summary judgment asking surviving of spouse summary judgment Michael's surviving Subsequent attorneys That 2, the the claiming order only agreement agreement. the a for she was the a motion Barbara for was not or being filed oral on the guardian telephone. to On compel had been reached guardian 24, 1994, the District motion for a in ad litem had never agreement a motion the parties. the appellants' filed the motion a and decided, by the agreement the the and signed On October denying motion been Court to compel reconsideration, was denied. between Barbara 1995. because The appellants On January the that agreement Barbara by the parties. which a motion filed find appointed that appellants, a binding conference. approved settlement. the written that to the motion an to appellants objected issued determine settlement was never telephone court and an oral 1994, settlement, to filed The appellants the Barbara agreement August Barbara court Michael. The court spouse. reached ad litem, children. to the summary judgment for was not the surviving of Michael. the asking Barbara 27, 1995, a distribution agreement and the children their potential heirs was filed, distribution Court filed agreement, filed approved a motion and the 4 guardian A notice Michael. and the appellants The District The appellants of through was entered of asking court ad litem the court ordered as distribution an objection the agreement into to the on March 21, to reconsider oral argument. On April 4, 1995, an order granting issue of motion status as motion a the District for representative. surviving From that to compel settlement, Court issued summary judgment spouse, and appointing agreement, personal the hearing, Barbara's her distribution following approving Barbara order appellants on the the as a supervised and the denial of their appeal. ISSUE 1 Do the lack appellants, standing Barbara record decedent's the appellants claims support of Natural 209 Mont. 682 P.2d 427, 437, be waived. County Comm'rs the first (1977), The appellants Court issue. and it is A party matter order. Mont. (1960), of the 409, to 1319, objections must have & 204, examine 384, 357 P.2d 41). 5 standing Stewart v. Board of 573 P.2d 184, separate their an interest injuriously (citing 188. issues standing an order. 1069 1060, (19841, from raising to as to this each Rule 1, M.R.App.P. in the affected Land Co. v. Newlan Creek Water Dist. 605 P.2d as we noted to is not precluded three is However, and Conservation 1324, 197, which that Court. may appeal litigation 138 Mont. to have appealed a party 425, she objected Resources 175 Mont. aggrieved Holmstrom contention time on appeal. necessary To be aggrieved, The Barbara Therefore, for to appeal. in District in Grossman v. Dept. defense and sister, have no standing Barbara's standing the appellants' this brother, to appeal? does not cannot mother, Estate subject by the (19791, 185 of Stoian Appointment Barbara contends they and so, could The appellants of the that not estate. Barbara appellants In fact, have who filed standing Wanda has priority determined to 72-3-503, MCA, appointment of PR, and for Michael's that and appointment that reason See Olson 726 P.2d distribution lack to agreed to estate, and the to receive a corporate The children's two-thirds issue error the receive Barbara is Section object to the appointment as no the appointment. nor heirs standing to of Revenue of the appeal (1986), her 223 Mont. a the Aqreement of whether enforcement and Barbara argues agreement. Under distribution through agreed, of As a creditors Distribution was in children estate. to appeal Dept. the challenge Barbara can only 1166. of raise agreement standing v. 1162, Enforcement The appellants have the MCA. Barbara's are neither they creditors is as PR if creditors to estate, as PR. are the 72-3-502, she has standing and sister as PR. § Wanda objected therefore, 469-70, See provides a PR. against appointment ineligible. brother estate, 464, be they Wanda Goick, claim for to the appointment because mother, a creditor's creditor, heirs by Barbara's Michael's appellant as PR were not be injured they claim of estate which of their will of that the they this agreement, one-third of guardian the ad litem, be administrated by trustee. distribution guardian to enter distribution into agreement ad litem provided that Barbara and agreed a private agreement among successors as to of an estate, pursuant to Section 72-3-915, 6 the the litigation in the probate MCA, in order to settle matter pending in Blaine County District Court and to provide for a different distribution than provided under the laws of intestacy. Section 72-3-915(l), MCA, provides as follows: Subject to the rights of creditors and taxing competent successors authorities, among may agree themselves to alter the interests, shares, or amounts to which they are entitled under the will of the decedent or under the laws of intestacy in any way that they provide in a written contract executed by all who are affected by its provisions. The personal representative shall abide by the terms of the agreement subject to his obligation to administer the estate for the benefit of creditors, to pay all taxes and costs of administration, and to carry out the responsibilities of his office for the benefit of any successors of the decedent who are not parties. The appellants are not successors proper to an agreement no parties legal interest Wanda's Furthermore, are completely A party the 726 P.2d at improper. 237 Mont. the erred in before where there Michael's estate. of Michael's estate is no personal Northern in 117, 129, 772 P.2d 829, 836 (citing Olson, have no personal We therefore to the Border stake Co. v. agreement. the They have Pipeline have no standing approving of are not by statute The appellants Accordingly, and so they the estate. as a creditor the controversy. 1166). of appellants for distributing distribution interests provided of (1989), validity the has no standing outcome State in to the estate claim issue distribution us. 7 conclude the distribution of whether agreement stake in the that agreement the District is not the was Court properly Enforcement Barbara contends a distribution she argues of however, a motion oral Asreement settlement to which appellants they have no standing to were parties enforce this was have no interest. to appeal the court's The appellants, agreement. in agreement and the of the excess to the contested agreement named Wanda as co-PR and awarded her a percentage agreement estate Settlement the contested of the estate Accordingly, denial of Oral of what appellants are directly and thus have standing settlement she would affected receive as a creditor. by the validity to appeal this The of the agreement issue. See Holmstrom, 605 granted summary judgment P.2d at 1069. ISSUE 2 Did the District Barbara's favor purposes Court err when it concluding of intestate claims divorced and in Judge informed final this order issue decree sole appellant both that Barbara the April 25, the parties was ever that issued. in the probate cannot she was the with that Barbara intestate succession The standard 1991, summary judgment spouse to litigate considered hearing the they were divorced, The District proceeding was the for Court agreement. is the same as that 8 a district Court a hearing that The court summary judgment review themselves District held spouse this even though and concluded surviving and granted we use to standing and Michael be based on an oral concluded surviving succession? Wanda, as the issue, that in for no on a divorce further purposes of in her favor. court's grant of used by the district court in applying Rule 1995), 900 P.2d is 56, at was 52 St. Rep. there are no issues entitled to 722-103(2) party to 700. of Summary material as a matter terminate surviving spouse of proceeding (Mont. judgment fact of Wanda all and marital and the law. Bruner, implied Barbara is that not concluded terminate an a 1991, Michael were marital for not 25, property § 72-2-103(2) spouse order is April and all to a surviving by the Barbara according "a person rights" claims that to that property Wanda "purporting" contends provides proceeding decedent. conveyed thereby MCA (1991), valid a to (1991), judgment cc), purporting rights. 699, County 903. a divorced, Yellowstone 903, is Section who v. where party 900 P.2d Bruner 901, appropriate moving M.R.Civ.P. the cc), MCA purposes of intestacy. There was no divorce 1991, proceeding, marital property (1994) 264 I rights. Mont. settlement was reached agreement of terminated Barbara from P.2d not the order an further in 899, status to as § 72-2-103(2) a cc), contends that 9 she an oral Whatever was merely was spouse the issued. was not MCA (1991). principals claiming Simms be considered order surviving of that proceeding final 25, as to all judge. and cannot no April Marriage a 1991, the reached we concluded 25, where re on parties from even In binding in the April between pursuant Wanda prevent is Barbara's Accordingly, 871 issued settlement Recently, 317, agreement equivalent or order nor was a final settlement an oral decree of is equitable the surviving estoppel spouse in regard to Michael's divorced estate when she has held for over one and one-half from Michael death. Equitable estoppel requires herself out as being years prior to his that: '1. There must be conduct--acts, language, or silence-amounting to a representation or a concealment of material facts. 2. These facts must be known to the party estopped at the time of his said conduct, or at least the circumstances must be such that knowledge of them is necessarily imputed to him. 3. The truth concerning these facts must be unknown to the other party claiming the benefit of the estoppel, at the time when it was acted upon by him. 4. The conduct must be done with or at least with the expectation, that it the intention, will be acted upon by the other party, or under such circumstances that it is both natural and probable that it will be so acted upon. . . . 5. The conduct must be relied upon by the other party, and, thus relying, he 6. He must in fact act upon must be led to act upon it. it in such a manner as to change his position for the in other words, he must so act that he would worse, suffer a loss if he were compelled to surrender or forego or alter what he has done by reason of the first party being permitted to repudiate his conduct and to assert rights inconsistent with it. . . .' Davis v. (quoting 488, Jones (1983), Lindblom 494, v. Employers' 295 P. 1007, In this 203 Mont. instance, 464, Liab. Assur. equitable estoppel representation that they intention or expectation that Michael It would also require upon the representation was not final. negotiated the divorce Both action was final Corp. (1930), 859, 861 88 Mont. would have required were divorced that was made with Michael relied to his he not be aware that parties refused to 25, 1991, hearing. testified and that the sign the Michael's not detriment the divorce settlement attorney for believe the that Michael did Michael insisted upon going 10 that would act upon the represen- and that at the April divorce 661 P.2d 1009). Barbara's tation. 467, to trial. This testimony aware that the divorce even detriment misrepresented if facts that were not was not Barbara the We conclude Michael It was uncontradicted. or order District Court surviving spouse for that and did found concerning to the status The record is We therefore did err holding summary judgment purposes in her his to intentionally that she and no divorce conclude that the Barbara was the that of intestate act of the divorce. clear issued. in was from claiming was ever not Michael not have is not estopped divorced. decree final was Barbara follows succession and granting favor. ISSUE 3 Did the personal District representative Wanda's appointed estate in that claim is that to the Barbara's act be named PR under the court's substantive action We review according without the interpreted the and that that of the estate if Wanda contends estate for that the Barbara she not take any approval. personal MCA, to determine whether 11 over the to that ordered a the law. as been She argues reason, Court of have the entire of supervision appointment to § 72-3-502, has correctly a fiduciary the court's not adverse would receive The District of the children. Barbara of interest interests. For that as should conflicts is directly self-interest. cannot appointed estate? children's to the estate it Barbara because the children Barbara benefit when of decedent's position regard children's for err PR because she has obvious Barbara's not Court Estate representative a district of Peterson (1994), court 265 Mont. 104, 110, 874 P.2d 1230, under will and there spouse has priority As stated for priority no devisees, 2, Barbara is Michael's intestate succession. over appointment was agreed to by the ad litem. Therefore, the determined Barbara children's any interests conclude creditor. had priority supervision that of the District as PR of Michael's spouse she heirs, the their in this estate's Her guardian when Furthermore, situation has public MCA. was correct appointment. the Court surviving through Court are protected MCA. § 72-3-502, children for 72-3-502, other & District surviving Accordingly, Michael's and been named decedent's Section appointment ordered the appointment. administrator, court a PR has not Issue of for If for in purposes are 1233. it the through the administration. did not err We in appointing Barbara the appellants' motion estate. ISSUE 4 Did the District Court to compel settlement The appellants over the phone tentative the oral parties' agreed to concluded this in denying of the case? assert by Barbara agreement. err the that parties' contends agreement approval. the settlement the agreement the settlement attorneys that reached the was an agreement by the attorneys The District with agreement the Court consent was insufficient action. 12 enforceable was merely and subject found of reached the to bind that a to counsel parties, the parties but in We review whether a District the court's Court's interpretation County v. Union Reserve 52 St. Rep. 529, Section authority with filed client the clerk distribute to appellant's that denying MCA, to not consent conclude 686, and hold the appellants' that court oral to these was not minutes was to While in a letter terms Court to compel settlement the dated upon over and so the agreement the are required, writing. not agreed District of agreement See § 28-2-102, the oral "filed and not instance agreements terms the motion the this be in has the has been upon the the agreement. that an attorney the agreement included a written We therefore parties Carbon 898 P.Zd 680, of in Distribution letter not constitute on the correct. agreement minutes of memorialized did that entered object estate. attorney Barbara 1995), agreement 5 72-3-915(l), June 2, 1994, phone. upon the the Michael's pursuant when the nor was it Furthermore, court. did his The settlement with (Mont. MCA, provides or entered otherwise." of the law is Coal Co. 37-61-401(l), clerk of law to determine 533. to bind the conclusions the letter MCA. was not binding did not err in of the case. ISSUE 5 Is entitled to this related Barbara appeal? Barbara spirited claims in nature. an award of attorney this to an award of attorney appeal is Accordingly, fees Rule 32, M.R.App.P., she contends pursuant states without merit fees and 13 is she is entitled to Rule 32, M.R.App.P. that: and costs mean to If the supreme court is satisfied from the record and the presentation of the appeal in a civil case that the same was taken without substantial or reasonable grounds, such damages may be assessed on determination thereof as under the circumstances are deemed proper. While this appeal, raised Barbara we cannot a review be aware of of the record were based on reasonable is not entitled appellants' motive demonstrates grounds. We therefore to an award of attorney aza We concur: 14 that Justice fees. in bringing the issues conclude
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.
