Featured Chrome Extensions:

Casey IRACs are produced by an AI that analyzes the opinion’s content to construct its analysis. While we strive for accuracy, the output may not be flawless. For a complete and precise understanding, please refer to the linked opinions above.

Keywords

settlementappealmotionsummary judgmentdivorceappellant
settlementappealhearingmotionsummary judgmentwilldivorceappellant

Related Cases

In re Guardianship of Nelson, 21 Wis.2d 24, 123 N.W.2d 505
View Case »
Nelson v. Estate of Frederick, 855 So.2d 1043
View Case »
Stone v. City and County of San Francisco, 968 F.2d 850, 24 Fed.R.Serv.3d 98
View Case »
McGee v. McGee, Not Reported in S.E.2d, 2007 WL 8327460
View Case »
Girard Trust Corn Exchange Bank v. U.S., 259 F.Supp. 214, 18 A.F.T.R.2d 6147, 67-1 USTC P 9134
View Case »
Justia Law Link
LexisNexis Link
Westlaw Link
CourtListener Link
Oyez Link

In re Estate of Goick, 275 Mont. 13, 909 P.2d 1165

Facts

Michael and Barbara Goick were married in 1981 and had three children. In December 1990, Michael filed for divorce, but no final decree was issued before his death in November 1992. Following his death, Barbara filed a petition claiming she was the surviving spouse and sought to be appointed as the personal representative of Michael's estate. Michael's mother and siblings objected, claiming Barbara was not the surviving spouse due to the pending divorce. The court appointed Barbara as the personal representative and approved a distribution agreement between her and the children, leading to the appeal.

Michael and Barbara Goick were married in 1981 and the marriage produced three children. In December 1990, Michael filed a petition for dissolution. A hearing in the dissolution proceeding was scheduled for April 25, 1991. Following the hearing, the judge was apparently asked whether Barbara and Michael were divorced and he responded that they were.

Issue

1. Do the appellants, decedent's mother, brother, and sister, lack standing to appeal? 2. Did the District Court err when it granted summary judgment in Barbara's favor concluding that she was the surviving spouse for purposes of intestate succession? 3. Did the District Court err when it appointed Barbara as personal representative of decedent's estate? 4. Did the District Court err in denying the appellants' motion to compel settlement of the case?

We restate the issues as follows: 1. Do the appellants, decedent's mother, brother, and sister, lack standing to appeal? 2. Did the District Court err when it granted summary judgment in Barbara's favor concluding that she was the surviving spouse for purposes of intestate succession? 3. Did the District Court err when it appointed Barbara as personal representative of decedent's estate? 4. Did the District Court err in denying the appellants' motion to compel settlement of the case?

Rule

The court applied the principle that a surviving spouse has priority for appointment as personal representative of an estate, and that standing to appeal requires a personal stake in the outcome of the controversy. Additionally, the court noted that an oral settlement agreement is not binding without a final order or written agreement.

If a PR has not been named under will and there are no devisees, the decedent's surviving spouse has priority for appointment. Section 72–3–502, MCA.

Analysis

The court determined that Barbara was indeed the surviving spouse as no final divorce decree was issued, and thus she had priority for appointment as personal representative. The appellants, being neither heirs nor creditors of the estate, lacked standing to challenge the distribution agreement. The court also found that the oral settlement agreement was not enforceable as it was not documented in writing or approved by the court.

The court concluded that Barbara is not estopped from claiming she and Michael were not divorced. The record is clear that no divorce decree or order was ever issued. We therefore conclude that the District Court did not err in holding that Barbara was the surviving spouse for purposes of intestate succession and granting summary judgment in her favor.

Conclusion

The court affirmed the lower court's decisions, concluding that Barbara was the surviving spouse and properly appointed as personal representative, and that the appellants did not have standing to appeal the distribution agreement or compel settlement.

We conclude that the District Court did not err in appointing Barbara as PR of Michael's estate.

Who won?

Barbara Goick prevailed in the case as the court upheld her status as the surviving spouse and her appointment as personal representative, finding that the appellants lacked standing to challenge these decisions.

Barbara claims the appellants have no standing to appeal. The record does not support Barbara's contention that she objected to the appellants' standing in District Court.

You must be