MATTER OF KUJATH

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

No, 13062 I N T E SUPREME C U T O THE STATE O M N A A H OR F F OTN 1975 I N T E MATTER O THE ESTATE O GOLDIE H F F MAHR KUJATH , Deceased . 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 G. Meloy, Judge p r e s i d i n g . Counsel of Record: For Appellant : Longan and Holmstrom and Vicki W. Dunaway, B i l l i n g s , Montana James C, Capser argued, B i l l i n g s , Montana For Respondent : Small, Cummins and Hatch, Helena, Montana Gregory A. Jackson argued, Helena, Montana Submitted: December 11, 1975 Decided : JAN 1 3 Filed : JFF 13 If?76 1976 M r . J u s t i c e John Conway Harrison d e l i v e r e d t h e Opinion of t h e Court. T h i s i s an 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 , Lewis and Clark County, d e c l a r i n g s e c t i o n 91-102, R.C.M. 1947, i n v a l i d a s being i n c o n t r a v e n t i o n of A r t i c l e 11, S e c t i o n 4 , 1972 Montana C o n s t i t u t i o n . Goldie Mahr Kujath died on August 8 , 1973, two days a f t e r e x e c u t i n g a w i l l i n which she l e f t n o t h i n g t o h e r s u r v i v i n g husband, John H. Kujath. The Kujaths, who had been childhood sweetheaas, were married on A p r i l 5 , 1973. Both had been married p r e v i o u s l y , had f a m i l i e s and each had l o s t t h e f i r s t spouse by death. Goldie was a long time r e s i d e n t of Lewis and Clark County and John a long time r e s i d e n t of Carbon County. Following t h e i r marriage t h e y r e s i d e d i n t h e honeof John on a small farm n e a r Fromberg, Montana. t o a t t e n d t o some of L a t e i n J u l y 1973, t h e couple came t o Helena oldie's b u s i n e s s a f f a i r s and she d i e d on August 8 i n Helena. The F i r s t National Bank and T r u s t Company of Helena was d e s i g n a t e d t o a c t a s executor of t h e L a s t W i l l and Testament of Goldie and i t p e t i t i o n e d t h e c o u r t f o r admission of t h e W i l l t o p r o b a t e and f o r appointment a s executor. Following appointment of t h e i n s t i t u t i o n a s e x e c u t o r , a p e t i t i o n was r e c e i v e d on b e h a l f of John H. Kujath, i n accordance w i t h s e c t i o n 91-3801, R.C.M. 1947, a s k i n g t h a t t h e c o u r t d e c l a r e he was, pursuant t o s e c t i o n 91-102, R.C.M. 1947, e n t i t l e d t o o n e - t h i r d of h i s w i f e ' s e s t a t e . The e x e c u t o r opposed t h e p e t i t i o n and t h e r e a f t e r agreed t o submit t h e m a t t e r t o t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t f o r i t s determination. c o u r t h e l d t h a t s e c t i o n 91-102, R.C.M. The d i s t r i c t 1947, v i o l a t e d A r t i c l e 11, Section 4 , 1972 Montana C o n s t i t u t i o n and denied t h e p e t i t i o n of John H. Kujath t o have s e t over t o him o n e - t h i r d of h i s w i f e ' s estate. The s o l e i s s u e b e f o r e t h i s Court i s whether s e c t i o n 91-102 imposes a d i s c r i m i n a t o r y r e s t r i c t i o n on a w i f e s o l e l y because of h e r sex and t h e r e f o r e i s i n v i o l a t i o n of t h e United S t a t e s and Montana C o n s t i t u t i o n s . Section 91-102, provides: 1I Married Women, W i l l s by. k married woman may made a w i l l i n t h e same manner and w i t h t h e same e f f e c t a s i f she were s o l e , except t h a t such w i l l s h a l l n o t , w i t h o u t t h e w r i t t e n consent of h e r husband, o p e r a t e t o d e p r i v e him of more than twot h i r d s of h e r r e a l e s t a t e o r of more than twot h i r d s of h e r p e r s o n a l e s t a t e . I 1 This Court i n a s e r i e s of c a s e s has h e l d t h a t when c o n s i d e r i n g t h e c o n s t i t u t i o n a l i t y of a s t a t u t e , t h e c o n s t i t u t i o n a l i t y i s presumed and anyone a t t a c k i n g t h e v a l i d i t y of a s t a t u t e has a heavy burden of proving t h e i n v a l i d i t y . C i t y of B i l l i n g s v. Smith, 158 Mont. 197, 490 P.2d 221; S t a t e v. Safeway S t o r e s , I n c . , 106 Mont. 182, 76 P.2d 81. I n e s t a b l i s h i n g t h i s t e s t , Montana i s i n accord w i t h every j u r i s d i c t i o n i n t h e United S t a t e s . 16 Am. Jur.Zd, C o n s t i t u t i o n a l Law, $137; 16 C.J.S. C o n s t i t u t i o n a l Law, I n t h e i n s t a n t c a s e , t h e q u e s t i o n of t h e c o n s t i t u t i o n a l i t y of s e c t i o n 91-102 i s more e x a c t , f o r t h i s Court p r e v i o u s l y cons i d e r e d t h e c o n s t i t u t i o n a l i t y of t h e s t a t u t e i n an i d e n t i c a l f a c t u a l s i t u a t i o n . I n r e ~ a h a f f a y ' sE s t a t e , 79 Mont. 10, 24, 254 P. 875 (1927). There t h e same s t a t u t e was a t t a c k e d a s b e i n g i n v i o l a t i o n of t h e Fourteenth Amendment t o t h e United S t a t e s C o n s t i t u t i o n i n t h a t i t denied c e r t a i n persons t h e e q u a l p r o t e c t i o n of t h e law. I n upholding t h e c o n s t i t u t i o n a l i t y of t h e s t a t u t e , t h i s Court noted: h he r u l e h a s been many times d e c l a r e d by t h i s c o u r t t h a t when a s t a t u t e i s a s s a i l e d a s u n c o n s t i t u t i o n a l , t h e q u e s t i o n i s n o t whether i t i s p o s s i b l e t o condemn, b u t whether i t i s p o s s i b l e t o uphold, and t h a t i t w i l l n o t be d e c l a r e d i n v a l i d u n l e s s i t s c o n f l i c t w i t h t h e C o n s t i t u t i o n , i n t h e judgment of t h e c o u r t , i s placed beyond a r e a s o n a b l e doubt. Testing the s t a t u t e under c o n s i d e r a t i o n by t h i s r u l e and i n t h e l i g h t of j u d i c i a l h i s t o r y , we t h i n k i t s v a l i d i t y should be upheld. " ** should n o t Respondent-executor argues t h a t Mahaffay be c o n t r o l l i n g because t h e laws and t h e p o l i c y of t h e s t a t e , under ~ o n t a n a ' s1972 C o n s t i t u t i o n , have changed. I n support i t c i t e s A r t i c l e 11, S e c t i o n s 4 , 1972 Montana C o n s t i t u t i o n , which r e a d s : "The d i g n i t y of t h e human b e i n g i s i n v i o l a b l e . N person s h a l l b e denied t h e e q u a l p r o t e c t i o n o of t h e laws. N e i t h e r t h e s t a t e n o r any person, firm, corporation, or i n s t i t u t i o n s h a l l disc r i m i n a t e a g a i n s t any person i n t h e e x e r c i s e of h i s c i v i l o r p o l i t i c a l r i g h t s on a c c o u n t . o f r a c e , color, sex, c u l t u r e , s o c i a l origin o r condition, or p o l i t i c a l or religious ideas. It F u r t h e r , t h a t Montana r a t i f i e d . . t h e Equal Rights Amendment which provides : " A r t i cl e S e c t i o n 1. E q u a l i t y of r i g h t s under t h e law s h a l l n o t be denied o r abridged . by t h e United S t a t e s o r by any S t a t e on account *'I of sex. * A LL Relying on t h e changes noted h e r e t o f o r e , respondent a r g u e s t h e law and t h e p o l i c y of t h e s t a t e of Montana have changed s i n c e Mahaffay, f a v o r i n g a g r e a t e r e q u a l i t y between sexes. W could a g r e e w i t h t h i s argument i f s e c t i o n 91-102, e R.C.M. 1947, stood a l o n e i n ~ o n t a n a ' s s t a t u t e s . However, i t does n o t s t a n d a l o n e b u t r a t h e r imposes upon married women a r e s t r i c t i o n r e c i p r o c a l t o t h a t placed on men i n o t h e r s e c t i o n s of t h e code. S e c t i o n 91-102 must b e r e a d i n c o n j u n c t i o n w i t h t h e dower and e l e c t i v e s h a r e s t a t u t e s . The dower r i g h t of a widow ( T i t l e 22, Chapter 1, s e c t i o n s 22-101 through 22-117), has been recognized i n Montana s i n c e statehood. S e c t i o n 22-107, R.C.M. 1947, p r o v i d e s : "Widow may elect---Every d e v i s e o r bequest t o h e r by h e r husband's w i l l s h a l l b a r a widow's dower i n h i s lands and h e r s h a r e i n h i s p e r s o n a l e s t a t e u n l e s s otherwise expressed i n t h e w i l l ; b u t she may e l e c t whether she w i l l t a k e under t h e p r o v i s i o n s f o r her i n t h e w i l l of h e r deceased husband o r w i l l renounce t h e b e n e f i t of such p r o v i s i o n s f o r h e r , and t a k e h e r dower i n t h e l a n d s and h e r s h a r e i n t h e p e r s o n a l e s t a t e under t h e succession s t a t u t e s , a s i f t h e r e had been no w i l l , b u t n o t i n excess of twot h i r d s ( 2 1 3 ) of t h e husband's n e t e s t a t e r e a l and p e r s o n a l , a f t e r t h e payment of c r e d i t o r s c l a i m s , of adnilnisiratko11 a11d any and all t a x e s , i n c l u d i n g s t a t e and f e d e r a l i n h e r i t a r t c e and e s t a t e t a x e s . " (Emphasis added) 2Xpt2LISt?b Under Montana's s t a t u t e s a widow h a s a dower r i g h t t o u n e - - ~ h i r d f a l l l a n d s which h e r husband was s e i z e d o f d u r i n g o !:he m a r r i a g e and u n d e r t h e s u c c e s s i o n s t a t u t e , s e c t i o n 91-403, 1947, a widow i s e n t i t l e d t o a minimum of o n e - t h i r d o f h e r K.Z.M. husband's e s t a t e . Thus, t h e s t a t u t e s p r o t e c t t h e widow by r e - s t ~ i c t i n g h e husband on t h e d i s p o s i t i o n o f h i s e s t a t e i n a t s i m i l a r i f n o t i d e n t i c a l manner t o t h e r e s t r i c t i o n imposed on t h e w i f e by s e c t i o n 91-102. I n a c t u a l i t y , ~ o n t a n a ' ss t a t u t e s p r o v i d e ::he w i f e w i t h a g r e a t e r p o t e n t i a l i f s h e c h o s e s t o e l e c t t o t a k e a g a i n s t t h e w i l l a s p r o v i d e d i n s e c t i o n 22-107, t h a n t h e s h a r e ehe husband might r e c e i v e under s e c t i o n 91-102. Since statehood t h e l e g i s l a t u r e has prescribed t h e policy aLL c~fMontana's s t a t u t e s s h o u l d b e r e a d t o g e t h e r t o f u l l y :hat u n d e r s t a n d t h e meaning of any i n d i v i d u a l s t a t u t e . 2 i l , R.C.M. S e c t i o n 12- 1947, p r o v i d e s : " C o n s t r u c t i o n of t h e codes w i t h r e l a t i o n t o each o t h e r . With r e l a t i o n t o e a c h o t h e r , t h e p r o v i s i o n s o f t h e f o u r c o d e s must b e c o n s t r u e d a s though a l l such codes have been p a s s e d a t t h e same moment o f t i m e , and were p a r t s of t h e same s t a t u t e . I I ? t e e k - v . G i l p a t r i c k , 18 Mont. 453, 454, 45 P. 1089 (1896); qee: . a S t a t e ex r e l . N i s s l e r v . Donlan, 32 Mont. 256, 264, 80 P. 244 (1905) ; Brown v . F o s t e r , 48 IJZont. 114, 1 1 9 , 135 P. 993 (1913) ; S t a c e e x r e l . School D i s t r i c t No. 4 v. McGraw, 74 Mont. 152, 158, !YO P. 812 (1925); S t a t e v . Kearns, 79 Mont. 299, 257 P. 1002 (1327); B a r t h v. E l y , 85 Mont. 310, 322, 278 P. 1002 ( 1 9 2 9 ) ; State v. Zorn, 99 Mont. 6 3 , 68, 4 1 P . 2 d 513 ( 1 9 3 5 ) ; S t a t e ex r e l . Walker v . Board o f Commissioners, 120 Mont. 413, 187 P.2d Lu13 (1947). W e f i n d no p o l i c y change i n Montana s i n c e t h e a d o p t i o n 3i :ne L972 C o n s t i t u t i o n t h a t would j u s t i f y o v e r r u l i n g t h e tfahaffay J ~ L ~ ~ L O I I .o t e ? e r e ive n I S L I ~ ; ~ .'iorita~ld s l l d w I J r o b d t e Code, a d o p ~ e c l l i t e r t h e 1 9 7 2 Montana C o n s t i t u t i o n , p l a c e s t h e i d e n t i c a l r e s t r i c - t i o n on b o t h m a r r i e d men and women a s t h a t imposed by s e c t i o n 41-102, R.C.M. 1947. The d e c i s i o n o f t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t i s r e v e r s e d . L a u s e i s remanded w i t h d i r e c t i o n t o g r a n t t h e p e t i t i o n . Justices The

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.