In the Matter of the Estate of Helen Edwards

Summary

The Montana Supreme Court reviewed a dispute over competing wills and trusts executed by Helen Edwards. The court affirmed rulings concerning the appointment of a neutral personal representative, evidentiary issues, and the jury’s finding that the later testamentary documents were procured by undue influence, fraud, or duress. It reversed and remanded the refusals to admit the earlier will, enforce the earlier trust, and award attorney fees and certain costs.

Holdings

1. When neither competing will has yet been probated and the litigation's purpose is to determine which will is valid and effective, the District Court may appoint a neutral personal representative who has no duty to advocate for either will.
2. The District Court did not abuse its discretion by admitting evidence of Verone's settlement with Ruby Valley Hospital after Schulz opened the door to the subject, or by excluding hearsay testimony concerning Helen's statements about her testamentary intentions.
3. Even assuming the District Court arguably erred in excluding Dr. Evans's testimony, the ruling was not reversible because the testimony would have been cumulative and did not affect a substantial right.
4. Substantial credible evidence supported the jury's finding that Schulz or Degel procured the 2012 Will and 2012 Trust by undue influence, fraud, or duress.
5. After the jury invalidated the 2012 Will and Trust, the District Court was required to admit the 2010 Will to probate and enforce the 2010 Trust because those documents were pleaded and litigated as the competing testamentary documents and were the only valid and unrevoked documents remaining before the court.
6. Section 72-12-206, MCA, did not bar Verone from seeking attorney fees because she successfully defended the 2010 Will, which should have been confirmed and admitted to probate after the 2012 Will was invalidated.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the District Court properly appointed a neutral personal representative who was not required to defend the 2012 Will.
2. Whether the District Court abused its discretion in admitting the settlement agreement with Ruby Valley Hospital, excluding testimony by Helen's attorneys concerning her testamentary intentions, and excluding Dr. Megan Evans's testimony.
3. Whether substantial credible evidence supported the jury's finding that the 2012 Will and 2012 Trust were procured by undue influence, fraud, or duress.
4. Whether the District Court was required to admit the 2010 Will to probate and enforce the 2010 Trust after the 2012 testamentary documents were invalidated.
5. Whether Verone was entitled to attorney fees under Montana's will-contest statute.

Disposition

reversed_and_remanded