LARANGO v LOVELY

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

No. 81-123 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA 1981 LOLA MAE LARANGO, et a1 . , Plaintiffs and Appellants, -vsKENNETH LOVELY, Defendant and Respondent. Appeal from: District Court of the Sixth Judicial District, In and for the County of Park, The Honorable Jack D. Shanstrom, Judge presiding. Counsel of Record: For Appellant: Robert J. Sewell,' Jr., Smith Law Firm, Helena, Montana For Respondent: Joseph T. Swindlehurst; Huppert Livingston, Montana & Swindlehurst, Submitted on Briefs: Decided: Filed: . . - $ 1961 Clerk September 17, 1981 December 9, 1981 j u s t i c e F r e d J. Weber d e l i v e r e d t h e Opinion of t h e Court. Mr. Appellants brought s u i t i n t h e S i x t h J u d i c i a l D i s t r i c t , Park County, Montana, a l l e g i n g t h a t t h e r e s p o n d e n t n e g l i g e n t l y performed h i s d u t i e s a s e x e c u t o r of t h e e s t a t e of which t h e a p p e l l a n t s are d i s t r i b u t e e s . Upon motion of t h e r e s p o n d e n t , t h e d i s t r i c t judge quashed t h e summons and d i s m i s s e d t h e suit. W e reverse. L o l a Mae Swandal d i e d t e s t a t e on November 8, 1974. Her w i l l was a d m i t t e d t o p r o b a t e on November 26, 1974, and Kenneth Lovely, r e s p o n d e n t h e r e i n , was named e x e c u t o r o f t h e estate. V a r i o u s p o r t i o n s o f f o u r s e c t i o n s of l a n d were included i n the e s t a t e . O i l leases involving t h e land i n t h e s e f o u r s e c t i o n s had been e x e c u t e d p r i o r t o t h e d e a t h of the testatrix. On J u l y 1 5 , 1975, t h e p r o p e r t y i n one of t h e s e c t i o n s was s o l d by Lovely i n h i s c a p a c i t y a s e x e c u t o r . The D i s t r i c t Court o r d e r confirming t h e s a l e s t a t e d t h a t t h e p r o p e r t y was s o l d " w i t h t h e tenements, h e r e d i t a m e n t s and appurtenances thereto." The p r o p e r t y i n a n o t h e r of t h e s e c t i o n s was s o l d i n August, 1975. The c o u r t ' s o r d e r c o n f i r m i n g t h a t s a l e i n c l u d e d a l e g a l d e s c r i p t i o n of t h e p r o p e r t y which c o n t a i n e d t h e words "Excepting t h e r e f r o m One-half of t h e e x i s t i n g o i l , g a s , hydrothermal and m i n e r a l r i g h t s . " These words were i n k e d o u t , and t h e d e l e t i o n was i n i t i a l e d by t h e judge. A s t a t e m e n t of a c c o u n t f o r f i r s t and f i n a l d i s t r i b u t i o n w a s f i l e d by Lovely on August 28, 1975. The s c h e d u l e of a s s e t s a t t a c h e d t o t h e s t a t e m e n t of a c c o u n t i n c l u d e d a r e c i t a l o f o i l l e a s e s on and m i n e r a l r i g h t s r e s e r v e d from t h e land i n a l l four sections. The D i s t r i c t C o u r t i s s u e d i t s d e c r e e of s e t t l e m e n t of f i n a l a c c o u n t and d i s t r i b u t i o n of e s t a t e on September 23, 1975. Each of t h e d i s t r i b u t e e s r e c e i v e d a f r a c t i o n a l i n t e r e s t i n t h e o i l and m i n e r a l r i g h t s t o the land i n a l l four sections. Lovely was d i s c h a r g e d a s e x e c u t o r on March 2 , 1976. On December 7, 1976, Lovely f i l e d a p e t i t i o n t o reopen t h e e s t a t e and amend t h e d e c r e e of s e t t l e m e n t of f i n a l distribution. Lovely a l l e g e d t h a t t h e d e c r e e i n a d v e r t e n t l y d i s t r i b u t e d t h e m i n e r a l r i g h t s t o t h e two t r a c t s of l a n d which had been s o l d . J u l y 1 9 , 1977. Hearing on this p e t i t i o n was had on The d i s t r i b u t e e s of t h e Swandal e s t a t e r e s i s t e d t h e p e t i t i o n , b u t on J u l y 29, 1977, t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t f i l e d a n amended d e c r e e of d i s t r i b u t i o n . The amended d e c r e e r e f l e c t e d t h e conveyance of t h e m i n e r a l r i g h t s t o t h e p u r c h a s e r s of t h e two t r a c t s of l a n d . The d i s t r i b u t e e s w e r e s e n t n o t i c e of e n t r y of judgment and a p p e a l e d from t h e judgment on September 1, 1977. The m a t t e r was f i n a l l y s u b m i t t e d t o t h i s C o u r t on September 2 1 , 1978. On November 27, 1978, i n M a t t e r of E s t a t e of Swandal ( 1 9 7 8 ) , , 587 P.2d 368, 35 St.Rep. Mont. 1716, t h i s C o u r t r e v e r s e d t h e amendatory a c t i o n of t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t . W held t h a t the e m i n e r a l r i g h t s a t t e n d a n t t o t h e two t r a c t s conveyed by t h e e x e c u t o r were n o t p a r t of t h e e s t a t e and n o t s u s c e p t i b l e t o d i s t r i b u t i o n t o anyone. The c a s e was remanded t o t h e ~ i s t r i c t C o u r t f o r amendment of t h e d e c r e e by a n o r d e r --- c nunc p r o t u n t o e x c e p t t h e m i n e r a l r i g h t s p r e v i o u s l y conveyed. The d i s t r i b u t e e s had r e t a i n e d a t t o r n e y McKinley Anderson t o r e p r e s e n t them i n t h e p r o c e e d i n g s o u t l i n e d above. ~uring t h e pendency of t h e a p p e a l i n M a t t e r - -e E s t a t e - Swandal, of t h of a t t o r n e y Anderson p r e p a r e d a c i v i l c o m p l a i n t i n b e h a l f of the distributees. The p l a i n t i f f s were Mabel L o u i s e E a s t o n , Dorothy E l l e n Larango, Lola Mae Larango, John Emery Swandal ( d e c e a s e d ) , Dorothy Hunt ( r e p r e s e n t i n g minor h e i r s S h a r i Swandal and John S w a n d a l ) , and Susan Denise Swandal. Gordon F r a n c i s Swandal, a l t h o u g h o m i t t e d from t h e c a p t i o n of t h e c o m p l a i n t , was i n c l u d e d i n t h e body o f t h e c o m p l a i n t a s a n h e i r of L o l a Mae Swandal. Kenneth Lovely was sued a s p e r s o n a l r e p r e s e n t a t i v e of L o l a Mae Swandal ( d e c e a s e d ) . The compl-aint a l l e g e d t h a t Lovely had been i n s t r u c t e d t h a t no o i l o r m i n e r a l r i g h t s w e r e t o be conveyed when p r o p e r t y of t h e e s t a t e was s o l d , b u t , d e s p i t e t h i s i n s t r u c t i o n , Lovely n e g l i g e n t l y a l l o w e d t h e conveyance of o i l and m i n e r a l i n t e r e s t s h e l d by t h e e s t a t e . The c o m p l a i n t was f i l e d on May 8, 1978, and a summons i s s u e d t h a t same day t o t h e p l a i n t i f f s ' attorney. T h a t a t t o r n e y , McKinley Anderson, was r e p l a c e d by t h e p l a i n t i f f s ' p r e s e n t c o u n s e l , R o b e r t S e w e l l , i n O c t o b e r , 1978. On May 1 7 , 1979, S e w e l l o b t a i n e d s e r v i c e of t h e summons which had been i s s u e d on May 8, 1978. B e f o r e Sewell o b t a i n e d s e r v i c e of t h i s summons, he a l t e r e d i t i n s e v e r a l r e s p e c t s . S e w e l l ' s name w a s s u b s t i t u t e d f o r t h a t of t h e former a t t o r n e y , Anderson; John Emery Swandal ( d e c e a s e d ) was d e l e t e d a s a p l a i n t i f f ; Dorothy E . Hunt, g u a r d i a n of S h a r i L . Swandal and John P . Swandal, m i n o r s , was s u b s t i t u t e d f o r Dorothy Hunt, r e p r e s e n t i n g minor h e i r s S h a r i Swandal and John Swandal; Gordon Swandal was added a s a p l a i n t i f f . made w i t h o u t l e a v e o f c o u r t . complaint w a s f i l e d . These changes w e r e On May 1 8 , 1979, a n amended The amended c o m p l a i n t showed t h e same changes i n p l a i n t i f f s and a t t o r n e y s a s t h e "amended" summons. The amended c o m p l a i n t added a l l e g a t i o n s t h a t Lovely had f a i l e d t o a c c o u n t f o r a g r a i n c r o p growing on one of t h e t r a c t s which had been s o l d and had p a i d p e r s o n a l r e p r e s e n t a t i v e f e e s and a t t o r n e y f e e s i n e x c e s s of t h e amount a l l o w e d by statute . A 1 though t h e amended c o m p l a i n t named Kenneth Lovely, p e r s o n a l l y , a s d e f e n d a n t , on t h e a l t e r e d summons. t h i s change was n o t made The summons s t i l l l i s t e d t h e d e f e n d a n t a s Kenneth Lovely, a s t h e p e r s o n a l r e p r e s e n t a t i v e of Lola Mae Swandal ( d e c e a s e d ) . On J u n e 6 , 1979, t h e d e f e n d a n t moved t o quash t h e summons b e c a u s e i t had been m a t e r i a l l y a l t e r e d s i n c e t h e d a t e of i s s u a n c e . Hearing on t h e motion was had on J u n e 29, 1979, b u t t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t d i d n o t i s s u e i t s o r d e r q u a s h i n g t h e summons a s i s s u e d and a l t e r e d u n t i l December 11, 1979. A t t o r n e y S e w e l l h a s h i s o f f i c e i n Lewis and C l a r k County, and a copy of t h e o r d e r q u a s h i n g summons was n o t d e p o s i t e d i n t h e m a i l t o be d e l i v e r e d t o him u n t i l F e b r u a r y 29, 1980. The copy was d e l i v e r e d t o Sewell on March 3, 1980. Back on December 11, 1979, S e w e l l had f i l e d a motion t o amend t h e summons. On March 6 , 1980, Sewell m a i l e d a motion t o r e c o n s i d e r t h e o r d e r q u a s h i n g summons t o t h e c l e r k of c o u r t ; t h i s motion was f i l e d by t h e c l e r k on March 20, 1980. On J u n e 23, 1980, a n amended c o m p l a i n t was s e r v e d upon Lovely, t o g e t h e r w i t h a new summons on t h a t c o m p l a i n t . Lovely responded on J u l y 7, 1980, w i t h a motion t o d i s m i s s t h e c o m p l a i n t on t h e ground t h a t t h e summons was n o t i s s u e d w i t h i n one y e a r of May 8 , 1978, t h e d a t e upon which t h e o r i g i n a l c o m p l a i n t was f i l e d . On J u l y 15, Sewell a g a i n moved t h e c o u r t t o r e c o n s i d e r i t s o r d e r q u a s h i n g summons o r t o a l l o w amendment. J u l y 1 5 was a l s o t h e d a t e f o r t h e h e a r i n g on L o v e l y ' s motion t o d i s m i s s . On J a n u a r y 27, 1981, t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t i s s u e d i t s o r d e r g r a n t i n g L o v e l y ' s motion t o dismiss. The p l a i n t i f f s a p p e a l e d . A p p e l l a n t s have r a i s e d t h r e e i s s u e s i n t h i s a p p e a l . However, a f t e r r e v i e w of a l l t h r e e i s s u e s , we f i n d t h a t t h e c a s e c a n b e r e s o l v e d by a d d r e s s i n g t h e c e n t r a l q u e s t i o n : Did t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t a b u s e i t s d i s c r e t i o n by r e f u s i n g t o a l l o w amendment o f t h e summons? The r e s p o n d e n t i s c o r r e c t i n a s s e r t i n g t h a t t h e power t o i s s u e a summons l i e s e x c l u s i v e l y w i t h t h e c l e r k of c o u r t . Rule 4 C ( 1 ) , M.R.Civ.P.; Kramer v . S c i e n t i f i c C o n t r o l Corp. (D.C. Pa. 1 9 7 3 ) , 365 F.Supp. 114.04 (2d ed. 1 9 8 1 ) . 780; 2 Moore's F e d e r a l P r a c t i c e An a t t o r n e y h a s no power i n t h e m a t t e r . The a t t o r n e y can o n l y r e q u e s t t h a t t h e summons be i s s u e d t o him o r h e r , Rule 4 C ( 1 ) , M.R.Civ.P., have t h e summons amended. o r move t h e c o u r t t o Rule 4 D ( 7 ) , M.R.Civ.P. The a t t o r n e y i n t h i s m a t t e r was w i t h o u t a u t h o r i t y t o a l t e r t h e summons w i t h o u t l e a v e of c o u r t . N e v e r t h e l e s s , once l e a v e was r e q u e s t e d , t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t s h o u l d have a l l o w e d amendment. The Montana R u l e s of C i v i l P r o c e d u r e a r e t o be c o n s t r u e d t o secure the j u s t , speedy and i n e x p e n s i v e d e t e r m i n a t i o n o f c a s e s , Rule 1, M.R.Civ.P., c a s e s on t h e i r m e r i t s . ( 1 9 6 4 ) , 1 4 4 Mont. that ". . . i t and t o f a c i l i t a t e t h e d e c i s i o n of Rambur v. D i e h l Lumber Company 84, 394 P.2d 745. This Court has s t a t e d i s t o be c o n s i d e r e d a s e r i o u s m a t t e r when a p a r t y moves t o have a c a s e d i s p o s e d of on grounds o t h e r t h a n the merits." Rambur, 1 4 4 Mont. a t 90, 394 P.2d a t 749. When t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t quashed t h e May 8, 1978 summons on t h e ground t h a t i t had been a l t e r e d w i t h o u t l e a v e of c o u r t , f a i l e d t o r u l e upon t h e motion t o r e c o n s i d e r i t s q u a s h i n g of t h e summons, and f a i l e d t o r u l e upon t h e motion t o a l l o w amendment of t h e summons, Rule 4 1 ( e ), Ir4.R.Civ.P. i n t o play. w a s brought T h a t r u l e p r o h i b i t s t h e f u r t h e r p r o s e c u t i o n of a n a c t i o n i f a summons h a s n o t been i s s u e d w i t h i n one y e a r of commencement of t h e a c t i o n . Lovely invoked Rule 4 1 ( e ) i n h i s motion t o d i s m i s s . The p a s s a g e of t i m e p r e c l u d e d t h e e f f e c t i v e i s s u a n c e of a new summons, and t h e c a s e was d i s missed. So, a f t e r f o u r y e a r s of l i t i g a t i o n and two r e v i e w s by t h i s C o u r t , t h e m e r i t s of t h i s c o n t r o v e r s y a r e y e t t o b e considered. The D i s t r i c t C o u r t h a s t h e power " [ a ] t any t i m e , i n i t s d i s c r e t i o n , and upon such n o t i c e and t e r m s a s i t deems j u s t , ... [ t o ] a l l o w any p r o c e s s o r proof of s e r v i c e t h e r e o f t o be amended u n l e s s i t c l e a r l y a p p e a r s t h a t m a t e r i a l p r e j u d i c e would r e s u l t t o t h e s u b s t a n t i a l r i g h t s of t h e p a r t y a g a i n s t whom t h e p r o c e s s i s s u e d . " Rule 4 D ( 7 ) , M.R.Civ.P. The r e c o r d l a c k s any i n d i c a t i o n t h a t m a t e r i a l p r e j u d i c e t o t h e s u b s t a n t i a l r i g h t s of Kenneth Lovely would have r e s u l t e d from a l l o w i n g a Rule 4D(7) amendment of t h e summons. t h e f u n c t i o n s o f a summons i s t o g i v e n o t i c e . One of Amendment of t h e May 8, 1978, summons t o r e f l e c t t h e minor changes c o n t a i n e d i n t h e amended c o m p l a i n t o f May 1 8 , 1979, would have g i v e n Lovely a somewhat more a c c u r a t e p i c t u r e of t h e a c t i o n b r o u g h t a g a i n s t him. Amendment would have a i d e d Lovely; i t would n o t have p r e j u d i c e d him. The D i s t r i c t C o u r t abused i t s d i s c r e t i o n by n o t a l l o w i n g amendment. i s reversed. The o r d e r of d i s m i s s a l The c a u s e i s remanded f o r amendment of t h e summons and amendment of proof of s e r v i c e . I s s u a n c e and s e r v i c e of t h e summons s h a l l r e l a t e back t o t h e o r i g i n a l d a t e s of i s s u a n c e and s e r v i c e , t o i n s u r e t h a t t h i s c a s e i s n o t d i s m i s s e d f o r f a i l u r e t o comply w i t h t h e t i m e r e q u i r e m e n t s of Rule 4 1 ( e ) , M.R.Civ.P. Reversed and remanded. We Concur: ChAef Justice \

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.