ESTATE OF DETIENNE

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

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: Filed: JAi\I 2 0 1983 - - - Clerk J a n u a r y 29, 1983 J u s t i c e John Court. Conway H a r r i s o n Mr. Petitioners/appellants delivered filed a t h e O p i n i o n of petition for an the 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 1982, in District and for the County of 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 Roosevelt. 8, Judicial the Court District ordered the petition be denied. P e t i t i o n e r s appeal. Elvina predeceased farm, was father, Charles DeTienne who distributed to the six surviving i n t e s t a c y proceedings. Shortly a f t e r the the DeTienne 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 children. died 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 i n t e s t a t e i n 1945. family her e s t a t e was i n the 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 Young D e T i e n n e s o l d a small por- children at a public auction. 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 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 u n t i l he r e t i r e d . h i s three children. On March 11, 1 9 8 2 , Elvina D i s t r i c t C o u r t f o r o r d e r of tunc. Petitioners DeTiennels estate Brenden's distribution claim t h e d e c r e e of "mistakenly of 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 petition. the i n i n t e s t a c y nunc p r o the heirs said estate," Charles of and Elvina t h a t the The D i s t r i c t C o u r t d e n i e d P e t i t i o n e r s appeal. The s u b s t a n c e of District petitioned d i s t r i b u t i o n of excludes DeTienne B r e n d e n l s b e n e f i c i a r i e s heirs Court e r r e d 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 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 s e c t i o n 91-3516 ... , R.C.M. at 1947. the t i m e of t h e d i s t r i b u t i o n was 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 1 5 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 distribution 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 after the the rendition heirs of 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, the of Charles estate, s i x t y days excludes of DeTiennels filed within "mistakenly the Elvina decree R.C.M. to 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. of f r a u d was r e q u i r e d W e n o t e , however, t o be b r o u g h t b e f o r e t h a t any a l l e g a t i o n 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 could constitute 11, 1 9 8 2 . fraud, J u d g m e n t is a f f i r m e d . the Even if petition t h e r e was m i s t a k e which was not timely filed.

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.