No. 12621
I N THE SUPREME COURT O THE STATE O M N A A
F F OTN
I N THE M T E O THE ESTATE O
ATR F F
MARTHA E. RICKNER, Deceased.
Appeal from: D i s t r i c t Court of t h e Tenth J u d i c i a l D i s t r i c t ,
Honorable LeRoy L. McKinnon, Judge p r e s i d i n g .
Counsel of Record:
For Appellant :
Pedersen and Herndon, B i l l i n g s , Montana
Donald Herndon argued, B i l l i n g s , Montana
P. Bruce Harper argued, B i l l i n g s , Montana
For Respondent:
P e t e r L. Rapkoch argued, Lewistown, Montana
Submitted: January 17, 1974
Decided :#= 13 1974
Mr. Chief Justice James T. Harrison delivered the Opinion of
the Court.
This is an appeal from a judgment in favor of the admin-
istrator of the estate of Martha E. Rickner.
Martha E. Rickner died intestate in April, 1970. On
December 26, 1972, John A. Rickner, petitioner and respondent
and the husband of deceased (hereinafter referred to as Rickner)
petitioned for letters of administration. The petition shows,
among other facts, that Rickner believed that the estate would
not exceed the value of $10,000 and that deceased was the owner
of certain property held in joint tenancy with Rickner. In his
petition Rickner sought termination of the joint tenancy. Rickner
was appointed administrator of his deceased wife's estate on
January 10, 1973.
Agnes Birkeland, objector and appellant and the daughter
and heir-at-law of the deceased (hereinafter referred to as Birke-
land) objected to the issuance of letters of administration.
On May 23, 1973, the inventory and appraisement was filed
showing that deceased owned real and personal property as a joint
tenant with Rickner. Included in the personal property was de-
ceased's portion of the seller's interest in that part of a con-
tract for deed, dated November 19, 1969, (hereinafter referred to
as contract) which pertained to 147 acres of land owned jointly
by deceased and Rickner.
On June 5, 1973, Birkeland filed her objection to the
inventory and appraisement. The grounds for this objection was
that the inventory and appraisement mistakenly appraised the value
and character of the deceased's interest in the contract.
The contract, wherein deceased and Rickner were sellers,
and Sylvan Anderson was the buyer, covered two parcels of agri-
cultural land. One parcel owned by Rickner alone consisted of
306 acres. The other parcel owned by Rickner and deceased, as
j o i n t t e n a n t s , comprised 147 a c r e s .
The t e r m s o f t h e c o n t r a c t i n d i c a t e t h a t t h e s e l l e r s re-
c e i v e d $2,000 upon t h e e x e c u t i o n of t h e c o n t r a c t and t h a t a n
a d d i t i o n a l $10,000 w a s t o be p a i d t o t h e s e l l e r s w i t h o u t i n t e r e s t
on o r b e f o r e December 1, 1969. The b a l a n c e of $ 4 8 , 0 0 O , t o g e t h e r
w i t h i n t e r e s t a t 6% p e r annum commencing March 1, 1970, was t o
be p a i d t o s e l l e r s i n 20 a n n u a l i n s t a l l m e n t s w i t h t h e f i r s t i n -
s t a l l m e n t due on o r b e f o r e December 1, 1970.
The c o n t r a c t e x t e n d e d t o and became b i n d i n g upon t h e
h e i r s , e x e c u t o r s , a d m i n i s t r a t o r s and a s s i g n s of t h e r e s p e c t i v e
parties thereto. A w a r r a n t y deed from s e l l e r s t o buyer was t o be
p l a c e d i n escrow a t t h e Miners and Merchants Bank, Roundup, Montana.
Any n o t i c e t o s e l l e r s t o be s e r v e d p u r s u a n t t o t h e c o n t r a c t w a s
t o be s e n t t o Rickner and t h e d e c e a s e d . Both t h e d e c e a s e d and
Rickner s i g n e d t h e c o n t r a c t . A t t h e t i m e of d e c e a s e d ' s d e a t h ,
$48,000 p l u s i n t e r e s t a t t h e r a t e of 6 % from March 1, 1970, re-
mained u n p a i d .
O J u n e 1 4 , 1973, B i r k e l a n d f i l e d and s e r v e d h e r p e t i t i o n
n
f o r amendment of t h e i n v e n t o r y and a p p r a i s e m e n t , s t a t i n g t h a t t h e
i n v e n t o r y and a p p r a i s e m e n t e r r o n e o u s l y r e f l e c t e d t h a t t h e d e c e a s e d
had a j o i n t t e n a n c y i n t e r e s t i n t h e c o n t r a c t , t h e whole c o n t r a c t .
O J u l y 1 6 , 1973, a h e a r i n g was h e l d i n t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t of t h e
n
t 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 c o u n t y of F e r g u s . The
d i s t r i c t c o u r t a d m i t t e d i n t o e v i d e n c e a copy of t h e c o n t r a c t and
h e a r d o r a l argument of t h e o b j e c t i o n . On August 2 0 , 1973, t h e
d i s t r i c t c o u r t e n t e r e d i t s f i n d i n g s of f a c t , c o n c l u s i o n s o f law,
and judgment which d e n i e d irke el and's o b j e c t i o n and g r a n t e d Rickner's
p e t i t i o n f o r t e r m i n a t i o n of j o i n t t e n a n c y . The d i s t r i c t c o u r t
concluded "That a b s e n t any e v i d e n c e of i n t e n t t o t e r m i n a t e t h e
j o i n t t e n a n c y t h e p r o c e e d s of t h e p r o p e r t y s o h e l d s h o u l d be
deemed h e l d i n j o i n t t e n a n c y " and d e c r e e d "That t h e p r o c e e d s of
t h e j o i n t t e n a n c y a c r e a g e s o l d was h e l d i n j o i n t t e n a n c y . "
There h a s been e x p r e s s e d i n argument some c o n f u s i o n a s
t o t h e e x a c t n a t u r e of t h e i s s u e p r e s e n t e d b o t h i n t h e d i s t r i c t
c o u r t and f o r r e v i e w h e r e . Simply s t a t e d t h e i s s u e i s : Was
t h e d e c e a s e d a t e n a n t i n common a s t o t h e p r o c e e d s of t h e whole
c o n t r a c t o r was t h e d e c e a s e d merely a j o i n t t e n a n t a s t o t h e
p r o c e e d s of t h e c o n t r a c t r e s u l t i n g from t h e s a l e of t h e j o i n t
tenancy property? The d i s t r i c t c o u r t h e l d t h a t t h e d e c e a s e d ' s
i n t e r e s t i n t h e c o n t r a c t was t h a t of j o i n t t e n a n c y a s t o t h e 147
a c r e s , and t h u s , t e r m i n a t e d t h e j o i n t t e n a n c y . W e agree with t h e
d i s t r i c t court.
Birkelandts contention is t h a t the contract is personal
p r o p e r t y and t h a t by t h e t e r m s of t h e c o n t r a c t , d e c e a s e d d u r i n g
h e r l i f e t i m e had a r i g h t t o r e c e i v e one-half of t h e proceeds being
p a i d p u r s u a n t t o t h e c o n t r a c t and t h a t upon h e r d e a t h t h e i n t e r e s t
t h a t deceased held i n t h e c o n t r a c t passed t o h e r personal repre-
s e n t a t i v e a s a n asset which s h o u l d be i n c l u d e d upon t h e i n v e n t o r y
and a p p r a i s e m e n t a s e s t a t e p r o p e r t y and s u b s e q u e n t l y d i s t r i b u t e d
t o her h e i r s . It i s B i r k e l a n d ' s p o s i t i o n t h a t t h e c o n t r a c t c r e a t e d
a t e n a n c y i n common as t o t h e whole c o n t r a c t .
Rickner c o n t e n d s t h a t t h e p a r t of t h e c o n t r a c t r e l a t i n g
t o t h e 306 a c r e s owned by him s e p a r a t e l y was n o t owned by t h e de-
c e a s e d and Rickner a s t e n a n t s i n common, b u t i s s e p a r a t e p r o p e r t y
and t h a t p a r t of t h e c o n t r a c t r e l a t i n g t o t h e 147 a c r e s of l a n d
under t h e c o n t r a c t owned i n j o i n t t e n a n c y i s j o i n t t e n a n c y p r o p e r t y
and went t o Rickner upon d e c e a s e d ' s d e a t h by r e a s o n of s u r v i v o r s h i p .
I n i t s judgment t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t r e l i e d on H e w i t t v.
Biege, 183 Kan. 352, 327 P.2d 8 7 2 , 875. I n t h e H e w i t t c a s e Ray
and Pearl Biege, husband and w i f e , owned l a n d i n j o i n t t e n a n c y
and s o l d it under c o n t r a c t , p l a c i n g t h e c o n t r a c t , t o g e t h e r w i t h a
w a r r a n t y deed t o t h e p r o p e r t y , i n escrow. The escrow a g e n t was
t o d e p o s i t t h e monthly payments i n a j o i n t a c c o u n t of t h e
sellers. The c o n t r a c t c o n t a i n e d no p r o v i s i o n a s t o t h e n a t u r e
o f t h e s e l l e r s ' i n t e r e s t s i n t h e r i g h t t o r e c e i v e payments.
Mrs. Biege d i e d w h i l e t h e c o n t r a c t was s t i l l i n e f f e c t .
The Kansas c o u r t s t a t e d t h e i s s u e t o be whether s u c h
c o n t r a c t c o n s t i t u t e d a s e v e r a n c e of t h e j o i n t t e n a n c y and h e l d
t h a t mere change i n t h e form of t h e p r o p e r t y i s n o t c o n c l u s i v e
proof of t h e i n t e n t t o s e v e r t h e j o i n t t e n a n c y .
The e x e c u t o r s of P e a r l B i e g e ' s e s t a t e c l a i m e d t h a t t h e
c o n t r a c t of s a l e n o t s p e c i f y i n g o t h e r w i s e c r e a t e d a t e n a n c y i n
common. The Kansas c o u r t , a f t e r n o t i n g t h a t under t h e Kansas
s t a t u t e a j o i n t t e n a n c y may be c r e a t e d i n p e r s o n a l a s w e l l a s
r e a l property, said:
" * * * I t a p p e a r s t o u s much more l o g i c a l t o s a y
t h a t when a l l j o i n t t e n a n t s concur i n an a c t and
none d i s s e n t t h e r e h a s been no h o s t i l e o r a d v e r s e
a c t which would t e r m i n a t e t h e t e n a n c y . Changing
t h e form of t h e p r o p e r t y i s a n a c t u n r e l a t e d t o
t h e holders' s t a t u s a s j o i n t tenants. J o i n t ten-
ancy i s a r e l a t i o n s h i p between c e r t a i n p e o p l e who
have a s a r e s u l t of t h a t t e n a n c y c e r t a i n r i g h t s
i n t h e - I f under o u r s t a t u t e j o i n t t e n a n c y
res.
may be had i n b o t h p e r s o n a l t y and r e a l t y , t h e r e
i s no r e a s o n t o a l t e r t h e p e r s o n a l r e l a t i o n of
j o i n t t e n a n c y b e c a u s e of a n a c t done j o i n t l y t o
t h e property.
" I t would a p p e a r t h a t i n view o f o u r s t a t u t e a
j o i n t t e n a n c y i s s e v e r e d o n l y i n t h e manner i n
which i t was c r e a t e d , i . e . , by c l e a r i n t e n t of
t h e p a r t i e s . * * *"
I t h a s l o n g been e s t a b l i s h e d by t h i s Court t h a t a c o n t r a c t
f o r t h e s a l e of r e a l p r o p e r t y c o n v e r t s t h e s e l l e r ' s i n t e r e s t from
a n owner o f r e a l p r o p e r t y t o t h a t of a n owner of p e r s o n a l t y , t h i s
b e i n g t h e d o c t r i n e of e q u i t a b l e c o n v e r s i o n . Kern v. R o b e r t s o n ,
92 Mont. 283, 12 P.2d 565; S t a t e v . K i s t n e r , 132 Mont. 437, 318
P.2d 223; McDonald v . Hoffman, 133 Mont. 65, 320 P.2d 357.
S e c t i o n 36-108, R.C.M. 1947 p r o v i d e s t h a t a husband and
w i f e may h o l d p e r s o n a l a s w e l l a s r e a l p r o p e r t y i n j o i n t t e n a n c y .
The e f f e c t of t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t ' s h o l d i n g i s t h a t t h e
p r o c e e d s o f t h e s a l e of j o i n t t e n a n c y p r o p e r t y p u r s u a n t t o a
c o n t r a c t a r e owned i n j o i n t t e n a n c y , i n t h e a b s e n c e of an a g r e e -
ment t o t h e c o n t r a r y . I n a d d i t i o n t o Hewitt, t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t
a l s o r e l i e d on Lawrence v . Andrews, 84 R . I . 1 3 3 , 122 A.2d 132.
A s urged by B i r k e l a n d , t h e r e i s a u t h o r i t y which i s c o n t r a r y t o
t h e p o s i t i o n t a k e n by t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t . See I n r e B a k e r ' s
E s t a t e , 247 Iowa 1380, 78 N.W.2d 863 and Buford v . Dahlke, 158
Neb. 3 9 , 62 N.W.2d 252.
I n Montana t h e r e i s no c a s e d i r e c t l y i n p o i n t , b u t it i s
t h i s C o u r t ' s opinion t h a t t h e b e t t e r l i n e of reasoning i s t h a t
f o l l o w e d by t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t , and i n t h e a b s e n c e o f an a g r e e -
ment t o t h e c o n t r a r y , p r o c e e d s of a s a l e of j o i n t t e n a n c y p r o p e r t y
pursuant t o a c o n t r a c t a r e held i n j o i n t tenancy. Mere change of
form t h r o u g h e q u i t a b l e c o n v e r s i o n d o e s n o t a u t o m a t i c a l l y change
t h e n a t u r e of t h e i n t e r e s t .
I n t h e i n s t a n t c a s e , however, t h e r e a p p e a r f a c t s not
p r e s e n t i n t h e above c i t e d c a s e s , f o r h e r e t h e c o n t r a c t n o t o n l y
i n c l u d e d p r o p e r t y h e l d i n j o i n t t e n a n c y , b u t it a l s o i n c l u d e d
p r o p e r t y owned s o l e l y by R i c k n e r . Having e s t a b l i s h e d t h a t de-
c e a s e d ' s i n t e r e s t i n t h e p r o c e e d s of t h e c o n t r a c t w a s t h a t of
j o i n t t e n a n c y as t o t h e 147 a c r e s h e l d i n j o i n t t e n a n c y , a b s e n t
a c o n t r a r y i n t e n t i o n , it is only l o g i c a l t o conclude t h a t t h e
d e c e a s e d ' s i n t e r e s t i n t h e p r o c e e d s of t h e c o n t r a c t r e s u l t i n g
from t h e s a l e o f t h e 307 a c r e s owned s o l e l y by ~ i c k n e ri s t h e
same a s t h e d e c e a s e d ' s o r i g i n a l i n t e r e s t , which i s no i n t e r e s t
a t all.
B i r k e l a n d , however, a s s e r t s t h a t d e c e a s e d was a n e q u a l
p a r t y t o t h e c o n t r a c t and r e l i e s upon t h e f o l l o w i n g f a c t s : both
R i c k n e r and d e c e a s e d were named p a r t i e s t o t h e c o n t r a c t a s sellers;
b o t h acknowledged r e c e i p t of t h e i n i t i a l payment; payments w e r e
made t o b o t h o f them by making payments t o t h e i r escrow a g e n t ;
d e c e a s e d w a s one o f t h e p a r t i e s t o whom n o t i c e s c o n c e r n i n g t h e
c o n t r a c t c o u l d be s e n t ; d e c e a s e d bound h e r s e l f t o t h e r e l e a s e o f
h e r dower i n t e r e s t i n a l l t h e r e a l p r o p e r t y which i s t h e s u b j e c t
of t h e c o n t r a c t ; and, t h e c o n t r a c t was b i n d i n g upon t h e h e i r s ,
e x e c u t o r s , a d m i n i s t r a t o r s and a s s i g n s . I n a d d i t i o n , Birkeland
contends t h a t c o - s e l l e r s a r e e i t h e r sellers a s j o i n t t e n a n t s o r
t h e y a r e s e l l e r s a s t e n a n t s i n common. B i r k e l a n d f u r t h e r con-
t e n d s t h a t s i n c e t h e r e i s no e x p r e s s d e c l a r a t i o n a p p e a r i n g i n
t h e c o n t r a c t t o i n d i c a t e an i n t e n t t o c r e a t e a j o i n t t e n a n c y
p r o p e r t y i n t e r e s t , t h e d e c e a s e d ' s i n t e r e s t t h e r e i n must be h e l d
t o be a t e n a n c y i n common.
W e r e f e r t o t h e c a s e o f Moxley v . Vaughn, 148 Mont. 30,
35, 416 P.2d 536, wherein Cora Read Pew was t h e s o l e owner o f
real property. She e n t e r e d i n t o a c o n t r a c t f o r t h e s a l e of t h e
property. C h a r l e s E . Pew, h e r husband, j o i n e d i n t h e e x e c u t i o n
of t h e c o n t r a c t . Payments p u r s u a n t t o t h e c o n t r a c t were t o be
made t o an a c c o u n t upon which e i t h e r Cora Read Pew o r C h a r l e s E.
Pew o r t h e i r s u r v i v o r c o u l d draw. T h i s C o u r t h e l d t h a t no j o i n t
t e n a n c y i n t e r e s t was c r e a t e d i n t h e c o n t r a c t by r e q u i r i n g t h e
payment t o be made t o a j o i n t a c c o u n t .
I n t h e Moxley c a s e , w e c o n s t r u e d s e c t i o n s 67-308 and
67-313, R.C.M. 1 9 4 7 and w i t h r e f e r e n c e t o t h e s e p a r t i c u l a r s t a t -
u t e s s a i d a t page 35:
"The above-quoted s t a t u t e s p r o v i d e i n e f f e c t t h a t
a t e n a n c y i n common w i l l be c r e a t e d u n l e s s t h e
i n t e n t t o c r e a t e a j o i n t t e n a n c y i s c l e a r l y shown.
The r u l e of law i s c l e a r , t h e d i f f i c u l t y i s i n
applying it.
" I n o r d e r t o c o n c l u d e t h a t a j o i n t t e n a n c y was
c r e a t e d it must be e s t a b l i s h e d t h a t i t was t h e
i n t e n t of t h e g r a n t o r t o c r e a t e s u c h an i n t e r e s t . * * *
"The a p p l i c a t i o n of t h e law t o t h i s p a r t i c u l a r c a s e
r e q u i r e s c a r e f u l s c r u t i n y o f t h e c o n t r a c t of s a l e
o f t h e F u l l e r Avenue p r o p e r t y . I t i s from t h i s
i n s t r u m e n t t h a t t h e i n t e r e s t of t h e g r a n t o r must
be g l e a n e d . * * * I f a j o i n t t e n a n c y i n t e r e s t i s
t o be e s t a b l i s h e d i n t h e c o n t r a c t , and t h e prop-
e r t y s u b j e c t t o i t , e v i d e n c e o f s u c h i n t e n t on t h e
p a r t of t h e g r a n t o r must c l e a r l y show from t h e
language u s e d . A p r o v i s i o n f o r payments t o be
made i n t o a j o i n t a c c o u n t d o e s n o t by i t s e l f
operate t o c r e a t e a j o i n t tenancy i n t h e i n t e r e s t
b e i n g conveyed. S e c t i o n 67-308, s u p r a , r e q u i r e s
an e x p r e s s d e c l a r a t i o n t h a t t h e i n t e r e s t b e i n g
c r e a t e d i s t o be a j o i n t t e n a n c y , and i n t h e
a b s e n c e of s u c h e x p r e s s d e c l a r a t i o n s e c t i o n 67-
313, s u p r a , p r o v i d e s t h e i n t e r e s t c r e a t e d , i f any,
s h a l l be a n i n t e r e s t i n common. The c o n t r a c t f o r
t h e s a l e of t h e F u l l e r Avenue p r o p e r t y d o e s n o t
contain an express declaration establishing a j o i n t
tenancy i n t h e property being s o l d thereunder.
"Thus, no i n t e r e s t having been c r e a t e d by t h e
c o n t r a c t i n C h a r l e s E. Pew, t h e v e n d o r ' s i n t e r e s t
i n t h e F u l l e r Avenue p r o p e r t y , upon t h e d e a t h of
Cora Read Pew p a s s e d i n t o h e r e s t a t e . * * * "
(Emphasis s u p p l i e d . )
I n l i g h t of o u r d e c i s i o n i n Moxlev we f i n d no m e r i t
i n Birkeland's contention t h a t the s e l l e r s a r e e i t h e r j o i n t ten-
a n t s o r t e n a n t s i n common a s t o t h e p r o c e e d s of t h e c o n t r a c t .
There i s no p r o v i s i o n i n t h e c o n t r a c t i n t h e i n s t a n t c a s e show-
i n g an i n t e n t by d e c e a s e d and Rickner t o c o n s t i t u t e a s e v e r a n c e
of t h e j o i n t tenancy. I n a d d i t i o n , t h e r e w a s no i n t e r e s t c r e a t e d
by t h e c o n t r a c t i n t h e d e c e a s e d a s t o t h e p r o p e r t y s o l e l y owned
by R i c k n e r . The o n l y i n t e r e s t t h a t d e c e a s e d had i n t h e c o n t r a c t
was a j o i n t t e n a n c y a s t o t h e p r o c e e d s of t h e p r o p e r t y h e l d i n
j o i n t tenancy p r i o r t o t h e s a l e .
A c c o r d i n g l y , t h e judgment of t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t i s
a f f irmed.
W e concur: /
i
i
I
I Chief J u s t i c e