Estate of Detienne ( 1983 )

NO. 82-328 I N THE SUPREME COURT O THE STATE O F M N A A F OTN 1983 I N THE MATTER O T E ESTATE O F H F CHARLES DeTIENNE, Deceased. Appeal from: D i s t r i c t Court of t h e F i f t e e n t h J u d i c i a l D i s t r i c t , I n and f o r t h e County o f R o o s e v e l t H o n o r a b l e M. James S o r t e , J u d g e p r e s i d i n g . C o u n s e l o f Record: For Appellant: Garden, McCann & S c h u s t e r , Wolf P o i n t , Montana G e r a r d M. S c h u s t e r , Wolf P o i n t , Montana F o r Respondent : M c I n t e e & Whisenand, W i l l i s t o n , N o r t h Dakota S u b m i t t e d on b r i e f s : December 9 , 1982 Decided: J a n u a r y 29, 1983 Filed: JAi\I 2 0 1983 - - - - Clerk Mr. J u s t i c e John Conway H a r r i s o n delivered t h e O p i n i o n of the Court. Petitioners/appellants filed a petition for an order of d i s t r i b u t i o n i n i n t e s t a c y nunc p r o t u n c i n t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t of the Fifteenth Judicial District in and for the County of Roosevelt. The p e t i t i o n was h e a r d o n J u n e 1 4 , 1 9 8 2 , and o n J u l y 8, 1982, the District Court ordered the petition be denied. P e t i t i o n e r s appeal. Elvina predeceased her father, Charles DeTienne who died i n t e s t a t e i n 1945. C h a r l e s D e T i e n n e l s e s t a t e , comprised of the family farm, was distributed to the six surviving DeTienne children. N e i t h e r E l v i n a n o r h e r h e i r s were m e n t i o n e d i n the i n t e s t a c y proceedings. Shortly a f t e r the e s t a t e was settled, Young D e T i e n n e p u r c h a s e d t h e i n t e r e s t s of t h e r e m a i n i n g D e T i e n n e children at a public auction. Young D e T i e n n e s o l d a small por- t i o n of the farm land i n 1 9 4 5 and worked t h e r e s t of t h e land u n t i l he r e t i r e d . Upon h i s r e t i r e m e n t he s o l d t h e f a r m l a n d t o h i s three children. On March 11, 1 9 8 2 , Elvina Brenden's heirs petitioned the D i s t r i c t C o u r t f o r o r d e r of distribution i n i n t e s t a c y nunc p r o tunc. Petitioners claim t h e d e c r e e of d i s t r i b u t i o n of Charles DeTiennels estate "mistakenly excludes the heirs of Elvina DeTienne B r e n d e n l s b e n e f i c i a r i e s of said estate," and t h a t the m i s t a k e was d i s c o v e r e d J u l y 7, 1 9 8 1 . The D i s t r i c t C o u r t d e n i e d the petition. P e t i t i o n e r s appeal. The s u b s t a n c e of the i s s u e s r a i s e d o n a p p e a l is w h e t h e r t h e District Court e r r e d i n denying the petition for an order of d i s t r i b u t i o n i n i n t e s t a c y nunc p r o t u n c . The s t a t u t e i n e f f e c t at the t i m e of t h e d i s t r i b u t i o n was s e c t i o n 91-3516 , R.C.M. 1947. The s e c t i o n s t a t e s : " ... t h e c o u r t may, upon m o t i o n of a n y p a r t y i n t e r e s t e d , or upon i t s own m o t i o n , w i t h i n s i x t y d a y s - t e r t h e - e n d i t i o n - -d e c r e e - af - r of the 15 cases - -e r t e n c e , or w i t h i n s i x t y d a y s of inadv a f t e r t h e d i s c o v e r y of t h e f a c t s c o n s t i t u t i n g t h e f r a u d , r e o p e n or s e t a s i d e a n y d e c r e e of a n y s e t t l e m e n t on t h e g r o u n d s o f i n a d v e r t e n c e o r f r a u d . " (Emphasis s u p p l i e d . ) Here, petitioners have claimed the distribution of Charles DeTiennels estate, "mistakenly excludes the heirs of Elvina DeTienne." To r e s t upon a claim o f m i s t a k e , a p e t i t i o n m u s t be filed within s i x t y days after the rendition of the decree to c o m p l y w i t h t h e e f f e c t i v e s t a t u t e , s e c t i o n 91-3516, R.C.M. 1947. Here, t h e d e c r e e was e n t e r e d i n 1 9 4 5 w h i l e t h e p e t i t i o n was f i l e d i n 1981, n e a r l y t h i r t y - s i x y e a r s beyond t h e s t a t u t o r y t i m e l i m i t . The D i s t r i c t C o u r t c o r r e c t l y d e n i e d t h e p e t i t i o n . P e t i t i o n e r s have suggested f r a u d i n t h e i r a p p e l l a t e b r i e f y e t f r a u d was n o t a l l e g e d s p e c i f i c a l l y i n t h e i r p e t i t i o n as r e q u i r e d b y R u l e 9 ( b ) , M.R.Civ.P. W e n o t e , however, t h a t any a l l e g a t i o n of f r a u d was r e q u i r e d t o be b r o u g h t b e f o r e the District Court w i t h i n s i x t y d a y s o f d i s c o v e r y of t h e f a c t s of t h e f r a u d as p r o - v i d e d i n s e c t i o n 91-3516, R.C.M. 1947. Here, p e t i t i o n e r s s t a t e t h e m i s t a k e w a s d i s c o v e r e d J u l y 7 , 1 9 8 1 , y e t t h e p e t i t i o n was n o t filed u n t i l March 11, 1 9 8 2 . Even if t h e r e was m i s t a k e which could constitute fraud, the petition was not timely filed. J u d g m e n t is a f f i r m e d .