Levc (Nee O Blak) v. Connors Colb

CourtMontana Supreme Court
DecidedOctober 18, 1976
Docket13220
StatusPublished

This text of Levc (Nee O Blak) v. Connors Colb (Levc (Nee O Blak) v. Connors Colb) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Montana Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Levc (Nee O Blak) v. Connors Colb, (Mo. 1976).

Opinion

No. 13220

I N THE SUPREME COURT O THE STATE O M N A A F F OTN

JOSEFA LEVC ( n e e O I B l & ) and IVANA OGRIN (nee 0 ' B1z.k ,

P l a i n t i f f s and Respondents,

THE HONORABLE HOLLIS G. CONNORS, T r e a s u r e r of t h e S t a t e o f Montana, and K e i t h Colbo, D i r e c t o r , Department of Revenue of t h e S t a t e of Montana,

Defendants and A p p e l l a n t s .

Appeal from: D i s t r i c t Court of t h e F i r s t J u d i c i a l D i s t r i c t , Honorable P e t e r Meloy, D i s t r i c t Judge p r e s i d i n g .

Counsel o f Record :

For Appellants :

Hon. R o b e r t L. Woodahl, A t t o r n e y G e n e r a l , Helena, Montana M a r s h a l l Murray, a r g u e d , K a l i s p e l l , Montana

F o r Respondents :

Thomas F. Dowling a r g u e d , Helena, Montana

Submitted: August 31, 1976

Decided :fief 18 1976 F i l e d : P'Tf 7 % ,! ' 1c';cir Mr. Chief J u s t i c e James T. H a r r i s o n d e l i v e r e d t h e O p i n i o n o f t h e Court.

T h i s i s a n a p p e a l from a judgment o f t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t ,

L e w i s and C l a r k County, a w a r d i n g p l a i n t i f f s f u n d s t h a t had

e s c h e a t e d t o t h e S t a t e o f Montana.

P l a i n t i f f s a r e t h e n i e c e s and h e i r s a t law of F r a n k

O'Blak who d i e d i n t e s t a t e i n B i l l i n g s , Montana, on J u n e 2 4 ,

1970.

The e s t a t e was a d m i n i s t e r e d by p u b l i c a d m i n i s t r a t i o n ,

and a f t e r f i n d i n g no known h e i r s , it was o r d e r e d p a i d t o t h e

s t a t e t r e a s u r e r a s e s c h e a t e d f u n d s i n t h e amount o f $8,693.93.

When t h e h e i r s i n Y u g o s l a v i a l e a r n e d o f t h e i r u n c l e ' s

death they f i l e d t h i s a c t i o n t o claim t h e funds. The d i s t r i c t

c o u r t r u l e d t h e h e i r s w e r e w i t h i n t h e e x c e p t i o n t o t h e two-

y e a r s t a t u t e of l i m i t a t i o n s even though t h e a c t i o n w a s f i l e d

more t h a n two y e a r s a f t e r t h e e s c h e a t e d f u n d s had been r e c e i v e d

by t h e s t a t e t r e a s u r e r .

The h e i r s w e r e g r a n t e d judgment f o r t h e e s c h e a t e d f u n d s .

The i s s u e b e f o r e t h i s C o u r t i s w h e t h e r t h e e x c e p t i o n t o

t h e two-year s t a t u t e of l i m i t a t i o n s f o r c i t i z e n s of t h e United

S t a t e s beyond t h e l i m i t s o f t h e U n i t e d S t a t e s , a p p l i e s t o c i t i -

zens of Yugoslavia r e s i d e n t i n Yugoslavia.

The s t a t u t e i n q u e s t i o n , s e c t i o n 91-509, R.C.M. 1947,

reads i n pertinent part:

" * * * Such a c t i o n must b e b r o u g h t w i t h i n two ( 2 ) y e a r s from t h e d a t e on which t h e money o r p r o p e r t y i s r e c e i v e d by t h e s t a t e t r e a s u r e r , s a v i n g , however, t o i n f a n t s and p e r s o n s o f unsound mind, o r c i t i z e n s o f t h e U n i t e d S t a t e s beyond t h e l i m i t s o f t h e U n i t e d S t a t e s , t h e r i g h t t o commence t h e i r a c t i o n a t a n y t i m e w i t h i n t h e t i m e l i m i t e d o r two ( 2 ) y e a r s a f t e r t h e i r r e s p e c t i v e d i s a b i l i t i e s c e a s e . " (Emphasis supplied ) . P l a i n t i f f s a r e n o t c i t i z e n s o f t h e United S t a t e s , b u t

a r e c i t i z e n s and r e s i d e n t s o f t h e P e o p l e s R e p u b l i c o f Y u g o s l a v i a . I t i s admitted f o r t h i s c a s e t h a t r e c i p r o c i t y of i n h e r i t a n c e

r i g h t s and r e c i p r o c i t y o f t r a n s f e r o f f u n d s e x i s t between t h e

U n i t e d S t a t e s and Y u g o s l a v i a .

I t i s s e t t l e d by K o l o v r a t v . Oregon, 366 U.S. 187, 6

L ed 2d 218, 81 S.Ct. 922, and E s t a t e o f S p e h a r , 1 4 0 Mont. 7 6 ,

367 P.2d 563, t h a t u n d e r t h e r e c i p r o c i t y p r o v i s i o n s o f a n 1 8 8 1

t r e a t y and i t s "most f a v o r e d n a t i o n " c l a u s e , Y u g o s l a v i a n c l a i m a n t s

have t h e same r i g h t t o i n h e r i t t h e i r r e l a t i v e s ' p e r s o n a l p r o p e r t y

a s t h e y would i f t h e y w e r e American c i t i z e n s l i v i n g i n Montana.

The r e l e v a n t p o r t i o n s o f t h e t r e a t i e s d i r e c t i n g t h a t r e s u l t a r e

set o u t i n t h e f o o t n o t e s t o t h e r e p o r t of Kolovrat.

The d i s t r i c t c o u r t h e l d t h a t t h e Y u g o s l a v i a n h e i r s a r e

e n t i t l e d t o t h e s a m e exemption t h a t American c i t i z e n s have who

a r e o u t s i d e t h e U n i t e d S t a t e s u n t i l t h e i r d i s a b i l i t y c e a s e s and

t h a t t h e i r d i s a b i l i t y r e a s o n a b l y c e a s e d i n t h i s c a s e upon a c t u a l

n o t i c e of t h e d e a t h of t h e i r uncle. The C o u r t a l s o i n d i c a t e d t h a t

s e c t i o n 91-502, R.C.M. 1947, r e q u i r e s t h e s t a t e t o h o l d e s c h e a t e d

p r o p e r t y i n t r u s t f o r 1 0 y e a r s w i t h i n which t i m e it may b e c l a i m e d

by f i l i n g a n a c t i o n .

W e hold t h a t t h e s t a t u t e a p p l i e s t o t h e s e Yugoslavian

c l a i m a n t s a s it would t o Montana r e s i d e n t s . T h e r e i s no q u e s t i o n

t h e y a r e e n t i t l e d t o i n h e r i t p r o p e r t y on t h e same b a s i s a s resi-

dents. This i s i n accordance with Kolovrat.

However, t h e y a r e n o t i n c l u d e d i n t h e c l a s s o f U n i t e d

S t a t e s c i t i z e n s o u t s i d e t h e United S t a t e s . W e do n o t f e e l compelled

t o g o beyond t h e h o l d i n g i n K o l o v r a t and j u d i c i a l l y d e s i g n a t e

them a s w i t h i n t h a t c l a s s and e n t i t l e d t o t h e e x c e p t i o n .

T h i s e x c e p t i o n was e n a c t e d i n 1943. A t that t i m e large

numbers o f o u r c i t i z e n s w e r e c a l l e d t o d u t y o u t s i d e t h e U n i t e d

States. Presumably t h i s e x c e p t i o n was e n a c t e d f o r t h e i r b e n e f i t

u n t i l t h e y c o u l d r e t u r n t o t h e i r homeland. W e a r e referred t o the general r u l e s t h a t limitation

s t a t u t e s making e x c e p t i o n s i n f a v o r o f p e r s o n s u n d e r d i s a b i l i t y

must be s t r i c t l y c o n s t r u e d and t h a t c o u r t s w i l l n o t r e a d i n t o

s t a t u t e s o f l i m i t a t i o n a n exemption o r d i s a b i l i t y which h a s n o t

been embodied t h e r e i n .

I f w e w e r e t o a c c e p t p l a i n t i f f s ' argument t h a t t h e s t a t -

u t e d i d n o t run u n t i l they received n o t i c e of t h e d e a t h , w e

would be r e a d i n g i n t o t h e s t a t u t e a n a d d i t i o n a l r e q u i r e m e n t .

N o t i c e of t h e d e a t h o f a d e c e a s e d i s n o t a d i s a b i l i t y o r excep-

tion t o the statute.

W e a l s o point out t h a t the s t a t u t e i n question here is

a l i m i t a t i o n s t a t u t e and a f f e c t s t h e remedy t o a s s e r t t h e r i g h t ,

not the r i g h t i t s e l f . The r i g h t o f t h e s e h e i r s t o i n h e r i t i s

n o t i n q u e s t i o n and i s e s t a b l i s h e d .

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Kolovrat v. Oregon
366 U.S. 187 (Supreme Court, 1961)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Levc (Nee O Blak) v. Connors Colb, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/levc-nee-o-blak-v-connors-colb-mont-1976.