Justia Trusts & Estates Opinion Summaries

Appellant appealed a district court order denying his motion for summary judgment, granting summary judgment in favor of appellees, as personal representative of the Estate of Larry Rasmussen ("Estate"), and awarding the Estate attorney fees. At issue was whether the district court erred in concluding that the Estate's nonjudicial foreclosure was not a compulsory counterclaim to an earlier action between the parties and whether the district court erred in concluding that appellant could not revive fraud-related claims as an affirmative defense. The court held that the district court did not err in ruling that the Estate was not required to assert nonjudicial foreclosure where the Estate commenced a foreclosure by advertisement and sale, which was a nonjudicial remedy it was statutorily entitled to invoke and the rules governing judicial claims and defenses did not apply to nonjudicial proceedings. The court also held that the district court did not err in concluding that appellant's fraud claims were barred where he was the plaintiff in the case and could not assert affirmative defenses nor could he compel the Estate to commence a judicial action so that he could raise an affirmative defense. The court further held that the Estate was entitled to recover attorney fees in the instant case in connection with its defense of appellant's claims in the district court and on appeal.

This case concerns two competing wills made slightly over one month apart near the end of decedent's life. The district court granted appellee's motion for summary judgment in favor of the probate of a will executed by decedent in January 2009 and dismissed appellant's formal petition to probate a handwritten document he claimed was a valid holographic will executed by decedent in December 2008 and denied appellant's motion to vacate, alter, or amend the order granting summary judgment. At issue was whether the district court erred in granting summary judgment in favor of appellee; erred in denying appellant's motion to vacate, alter, or amend; and erred in denying appellant's M.R.Civ.P. 56(f) motion. Also at issue was whether appellee was entitled to attorney's fees and costs. The court held that summary judgment was properly granted to appellee where the district court's evidentiary rulings were correct, appellant failed to present any genuine issues of fact, and the court correctly analyzed appellant's claim of undue influence. The court also held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying appellant's motion based on alleged discovery abuses where the district court's ruling was made irrespective of any information contained in appellee's affidavits that appellant would have been better prepared to rebut. The court further held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying appellant's motion where nothing in counsel's affidavit explained what additional facts appellant would obtain through additional discovery that would effectively oppose the motion for summary judgment. The court finally held that appellant's appeal was now no longer pending and appellee had defended a contested will that was later confirmed, entitling him to fees and costs as provided in 72-12-206, MCA. Accordingly, the court affirmed the grant of summary judgment and remanded the issue of attorney's fees and costs for further proceedings.

Appellants appealed the order of the district court denying their motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction over the estate of their father, the decedent. At issue was whether the district court erred when it assumed subject matter jurisdiction over the probate of the estate when the decedent was an enrolled member of the Blackfeet Tribe and all of his estate property was located within the exterior boundaries of the Blackfeet Reservation at the time of his death. The court overruled State ex rel. Iron Bear v. District Court and held that the Blackfeet Tribal Court had exclusive jurisdiction over the probate of the decedent's estate and assumption of subject matter jurisdiction by the district court was impermissible because Montana and the Blackfeet Tribe had not taken the necessary steps for Montana to assume civil jurisdiction over the Blackfeet Reservation.

This case involves two competing wills made slightly over one month apart near the end of the decedent's life. The district court granted the estate's personal representative Roger Harmon's motion for summary judgment in favor of the probate of a will executed by the decedent Cecilia Harmon in January, 2009. The court dismissed Appellant Dennis Waitt' s formal petition to probate a handwritten document Waitt claimed was a valid holographic will executed by the decedent in December, 2008, and denied Waitt's motion to vacate, alter or amend the order granting summary judgment in favor of Harmon. Waitt produced affidavits alleged to have contained the decedent's wishes in drafting the holographic will, but the affidavits were excluded as hearsay. On review of the record, the Supreme Court held that Waitt did not present sufficient evidence to demonstrate the existence of a genuine issue of material fact required to defeat the summary judgment, and affirmed the lower court's decision.