Estate of Darlene Wilcock Ernest W
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
August 2 2011
DA 10-0625
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA
2011 MT 186N
IN THE MATTER OF THE ESTATE OF
DARLENE J. WILCOCK, deceased,
ERNEST WILCOCK,
Petitioner and Appellant,
v.
BRANDI WILCOCK and HOLLY BLOUCH f/k/a
HOLLY WILCOCK and RANDY JONES,
Respondents and Appellees.
APPEAL FROM:
District Court of the Eleventh Judicial District,
In and For the County of Flathead, Cause Nos. DP-04-008(A)
and DV-08-26
Honorable Ted O. Lympus, Presiding Judge
COUNSEL OF RECORD:
For Appellant:
Ernest Wilcock (Self-Represented), Shelby, Montana
For Appellee Estate of Darlene J. Wilcock:
Shelly F. Brander, Kaufman, Vidal, Hileman, P.C., Kalispell, Montana
For Appellees Brandi Wilcock and Holly Blough:
Paul D. Sullivan, Measure Law Office, P.C., Kalispell, Montana
For Appellee Randy Jones:
Matthew B. Thiel, Saul H. Seyler, Thiel Law Office, PLLC,
Missoula, Montana
Submitted on Briefs: July 13, 2011
Decided: August 2, 2011
Filed:
__________________________________________
Clerk
2
Justice Patricia O. Cotter delivered the Opinion of the Court.
¶1
Pursuant to Section I, Paragraph 3(d), Montana Supreme Court Internal Operating
Rules, this case is decided by memorandum opinion and shall not be cited and does not
serve as precedent. Its case title, cause number, and disposition shall be included in this
Court’s quarterly list of noncitable cases published in the Pacific Reporter and Montana
Reports.
¶2
This matter arises out of the handling of the estate of Darlene J. Wilcock (Estate),
daughter of Appellant Ernest Wilcock (Ernest). Darlene was murdered on April 17,
2003, and no one has been criminally charged in connection with her death. Darlene was
survived by her sisters Holly Blouch (Holly) and Brandi Wilcock (Brandi), her mother
Marla Friske (Marla), and her father, Ernest. She was, at some point, romantically
involved with Randy Jones (Randy). Darlene died intestate and Marla was named the
personal representative of the Estate. The only significant assets Darlene possessed at the
time of her death were two insurance policies, each worth $250,000. The primary
beneficiary of these policies was Randy. Holly was the alternate beneficiary of the State
Farm Life Insurance Company policy and Brandi was the alternate beneficiary of the
Farmers New World Life Insurance Company policy.
Ernest was not a named
beneficiary of either life insurance policy.
¶3
After Darlene’s death, Holly and Brandi brought numerous actions against Randy
seeking a share of the insurance proceeds, which we related in detail in In re the Estate of
Darlene J. Wilcock, 2007 MT 313N, (Estate of Wilcock I).
3
Marla, as personal
representative of the Estate, also brought a wrongful death and survivorship claim against
Randy. Ernest was not a party to any of these actions; however, as an interested party, he
was provided notice of the court proceedings. After years of litigation, Holly, Brandi, the
Estate, and Randy reached a global settlement agreement dividing the policies’ proceeds
that was approved by the Eleventh Judicial District Court, Flathead County, order dated
October 26, 2010, entitled Order Approving Petition for Approval of Compromise and
Release of Funds Held by the Court (Order). It is this Order Ernest challenges.
¶4
At the outset, Ernest argues he was prejudiced by his late receipt of the Order;
however this argument is moot because we granted Ernest’s request to file the
out-of-time appeal that is currently before us.
Therefore, Ernest’s only substantive
challenge to the Order is that as an interested party and heir to the Estate, he was entitled
to receive some portion of proceeds from the two life insurance policies because they
should have been deemed part of the proceeds of the Estate.
¶5
We review a district court’s conclusions of law for correctness. Hart v. Hart,
2011 MT 102, ¶ 10, 360 Mont. 308, ___ P.3d ___. As a matter of law, Ernest has no
legal interest in the life insurance proceeds because it is undisputed that he is not a named
beneficiary of either policy, and life insurance policies are non-probate assets. See Estate
of Wilcock I; § 72-6-111(1), MCA, and the official comments to § 72-6-111, MCA.
Therefore, we conclude that the District Court did not err in issuing the Order approving
the settlement and distribution agreement that did not apportion any of the life insurance
policies’ proceeds to Ernest.
4
¶6
We have determined to decide this case pursuant to Section I, Paragraph 3(d) of
our Internal Operating Rules, which provides for noncitable memorandum opinions. The
issues in this case are legal and are controlled by settled Montana law, which the District
Court correctly interpreted.
¶7
Affirmed.
/S/ PATRICIA COTTER
We concur:
/S/ MIKE McGRATH
/S/ JAMES C. NELSON
/S/ BETH BAKER
/S/ JIM RICE
5
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.
