Estate of Heavy Runner

2024 MT 112N, 549 P.3d 473

• Court: Montana Supreme Court
• Decided: May 28, 2024
• Docket: DA 23-0199
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

05/28/2024

DA 23-0199 Case Number: DA 23-0199

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA

2024 MT 112N

IN THE MATTER OF THE ESTATE OF:

LYLE JAMES HEAVY RUNNER,

Deceased.

APPEAL FROM: District Court of the Eighth Judicial District, In and For the County of Cascade, Cause No. DDP-21-0056 Honorable John W. Parker, Presiding Judge

COUNSEL OF RECORD:

For Appellant:

Bradley J. Jones, Bulman Jones & Cook PLLC, Missoula, Montana

For Appellee:

Jason T. Holden, Katie R. Ranta, Faure Holden Attorneys at Law, P.C., Great Falls, Montana

Submitted on Briefs: March 20, 2024

Decided: May 28, 2024

Filed:

qi5--6 A-- ‘f __________________________________________ Clerk Chief Justice Mike McGrath delivered the Opinion of the Court.

¶1 Pursuant to Section I, Paragraph 3(c), Montana Supreme Court Internal Operating

Rules, this case is decided by memorandum opinion and shall not be cited and does not

serve as precedent. Its case title, cause number, and disposition shall be included in this

Court’s quarterly list of noncitable cases published in the Pacific Reporter and Montana

Reports.

¶2 Martina Heavy Runner appeals an Eighth Judicial District Court order affirming the

appointment of Nakoa Heavy Runner as personal representative (PR) of Lyle Heavy

Runner’s estate.

¶3 We affirm.

¶4 Lyle and Martina Heavy Runner had lived separately for 16 years when Lyle passed

away on October 23, 2020. Their separation was mediated in 2008, and Lyle and Martina

both signed a handwritten separation agreement reflecting the mediation. Ultimately, Lyle

and Martina signed a property settlement agreement (PSA) reflecting similar terms in 2009,

but dissolution proceedings never occurred.

¶5 The PSA provided that Martina “releases and forever discharges” Lyle “[and]

his . . . personal representative . . . from any and all rights, claims demands and obligations

except as herein specifically provided and each Party is forever barred from having or

asserting any such right, claim, demand or obligation at any time hereafter for any

purpose . . . .”

2 ¶6 On February 19, 2021, Nakoa Heavy Runner, one of Lyle’s three sons, filed an

Application for Informal Probate and Appointment of Personal Representative. The Clerk

of the District Court granted informal probate and appointed Nakoa as PR.

¶7 On September 21, 2021, Martina filed a second probate, asserting her priority for

appointment as Lyle’s surviving spouse, and was issued letters as the PR. Nakoa objected,

and a scheduling conference and status hearing was set for December 20, 2021. Martina

did not appear at that hearing. Martina’s letters were thus revoked on December 27, 2021,

and a hearing was set for March 24, 2022. On June 2, 2022, a contested hearing was held

on the issue of whether Nakoa should remain PR, or whether Martina should be appointed

and Nakoa removed.

¶8 The District Court affirmed Nakoa’s appointment on June 29, 2022, and Martina

appealed the District Court’s ruling on retaining Nakoa as PR on March 30, 2023.

¶9 On appeal, Martina argues that as surviving spouse, she has priority for appointment

as a matter of law under § 72-3-502, MCA. Nakoa counters that he was properly appointed

because Martina renounced priority in the PSA, which is an enforceable contract regardless

of her marital status.

¶10 We find it unnecessary to address the merits of Martina’s marital status or the

enforceability of the PSA.

¶11 The District Court had discretion to determine whether or not to remove Nakoa after

he was appointed PR in informal probate. In re Estate of Bennett, 2013 MT 228, ¶ 5, 371

Mont. 270, 312 P.3d 400 (reviewing removal of a personal representative for an abuse of

discretion). Likewise, the District Court had discretion to deny Martina’s contested 3 petition for appointment because of her apparent conflict with Lyle. In re Estate of Kuralt,

2001 MT 153, ¶ 11, 306 Mont. 73, 30 P.3d 345 (refusal to appoint PR because of conflict

reviewed for an abuse of discretion).

¶12 Under the facts of this case, it was not an abuse of discretion for the District Court

to retain Nakoa as personal representative.

¶13 We have determined to decide this case pursuant to Section I, Paragraph 3(c) of our

Internal Operating Rules, which provides for memorandum opinions. In the opinion of the

Court, the case presents a question controlled by settled law or by the clear application of

applicable standards of review.

¶14 Affirmed.

/S/ MIKE McGRATH

We Concur:

/S/ INGRID GUSTAFSON /S/ BETH BAKER /S/ DIRK M. SANDEFUR /S/ JIM RICE