No. 14401
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA
1979
THELMA L. FRAUNHOFER,
Plaintiff and Appellant,
DONALD L. PRICE, PERSONAL REPRESENTATIVE
OF THE ESTATE OF OMAR C. FRAUNHOFER,
Defendant and Respondent.
Appeal from: District Court of the Eighth Judicial District,
Honorable Joel G. Roth, Judge presiding.
Counsel of Record:
For Appellant:
James, Gray & McCafferty, Great Falls, Montana
Dennis McCafferty argued, Great Falls, Montana
For Respondent :
Church, Harris, Johnson & Williams, Great Falls, Montana
M. 0 Wordal argued, Great Falls, Montana
.
Submitted: February 6, 1979
Decided: APR 3 0 1979
The Honorable James B. W h e e l i s , D i s t r i c t J u d g e , d e l i v e r e d
t h e Opinion o f t h e C o u r t .
P l a i n t i f f Thelma L. F r a u n h o f e r a p p e a l s from a n o r d e r of
t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t of t h e E i g h t h J u d i c i a l D i s t r i c t , Cascade
County, t h e Honorable J o e l G . Roth p r e s i d i n g , g r a n t i n g
d e f e n d a n t ' s motion t o d i s m i s s p l a i n t i f f ' s c o m p l a i n t f o r
f a i l u r e t o s t a t e a c l a i m upon which r e l i e f c a n b e g r a n t e d .
T h i s c a s e i n v o l v e s a n a t t e m p t by p l a i n t i f f t o have a
d i v o r c e d e c r e e d e c l a r e d v o i d - i n i t i o and t o have h e r s e l f
ab
d e c l a r e d t o be t h e widow of Omar C. F r a u n h o f e r ; o r , a s a n
a l t e r n a t i v e , t o have a p u r p o r t e d p r o p e r t y s e t t l e m e n t a g r e e -
ment between t h e p a r t i e s r e s c i n d e d and t o have t h e D i s t r i c t
C o u r t d e t e r m i n e a f a i r and e q u i t a b l e d i v i s i o n of t h e prop-
e r t y ; o r , a s a n a l t e r n a t i v e , t o have t h e alimony and main-
tenance p r o v i s i o n s of t h e decree of d i v o r c e modified because
o f s u b s t a n t i a l and c o n t i n u i n g changed c i r c u m s t a n c e s .
On F e b r u a r y 9 , 1971, Omar C . F r a u n h o f e r commenced an
a c t i o n f o r d i v o r c e , C i v i l Cause Number 72791-C, against his
t h e n w i f e , Thelma L. F r a u n h o f e r , on t h e grounds of e x t r e m e
c r u e l t y , i n t h e D i s t r i c t Court of t h e Eighth J u d i c i a l D i s -
t r i c t , Cascade County. On F e b r u a r y 1 9 , 1971, Thelma L.
F r a u n h o f e r e x e c u t e d a n agreement, which was l a t e r i n c o r -
p o r a t e d i n t h e d i v o r c e d e c r e e , a l o n g w i t h a n Admission of
S e r v i c e , Waiver o f T i m e t o Appear, and Consent t o Judgment.
On March 2 5 , 1971, a d e c r e e of d i v o r c e was g r a n t e d t o Omar
C. Fraunhofer i n t h e D i s t r i c t Court.
A s p a r t of t h e d e c r e e , t h e agreement between t h e p a r -
t i e s r e s p e c t i n g p r o p e r t y and alimony payments was approved
by t h e c o u r t and i n c o r p o r a t e d by r e f e r e n c e i n t h e d e c r e e of
divorce. T h i s agreement n o t e d t h a t t h e p a r t i e s w e r e m a r r i e d
on J u n e 28, 1948; t h a t " t h e WIFE [ h a d ] a s s i s t e d t h e HUSBAND
i n h i s f a r m and r a n c h o p e r a t i o n s and [ h a d ] c o n t r i b u t e d
g r e a t l y t o t h e m a i n t e n a n c e of t h e p r o p e r t y owned by h e r
HUSBAND"; t h a t t h e p a r t i e s had c a r e f u l l y c o n s i d e r e d t h e i r
s e p a r a t e r i g h t s and i n t e r e s t s ; and t h a t t h e y had e a c h b e e n
r e p r e s e n t e d by a t t o r n e y s t h r o u g h o u t t h e n e g o t i a t i o n s which
r e s u l t e d i n t h e agreement. The a g r e e m e n t t h e n p r o v i d e d t h a t
t h e husband would pay t h e w i f e $33,000 " a s a n d f o r ALIMONY,"
t o b e p a i d i n t h e f o l l o w i n g manner:
"A. The sum o f F i f t e e n Thousand and no/100
D o l l a r s ( $ 1 5 , 0 0 0 . 0 0 ) upon t h e e x e c u t i o n o f
t h i s Agreement.
"B. The b a l a n c e o f E i g h t e e n Thousand and
no/100 D o l l a r s ($18,000.00) s h a l l b e p a i d i n
e q u a l m o n t h l y payments o f T h r e e Hundred and
no/100 D o l l a r s ($300.00) commencing % a r c h 1,
1 9 7 1 , and t h e r e a f t e r o n t h e f i r s t d a y o f e a c h
s u c c e e d i n g month u n t i l t h e sum o f E i g h t e e n
Thousand and no/100 D o l l a r s ( $ 1 8 , 0 0 0 . 0 0 ) h a s
been p a i d i n f u l l . This w i l l r e q u i r e s i x t y
( 6 0 ) m o n t h l y payments."
The a g r e e m e n t went o n t o p r o v i d e t h a t t h e s i x t y m o n t h l y
payments would b e p a i d r e g a r d l e s s o f t h e m a r i t a l s t a t u s o f
t h e w i f e , and r e g a r d l e s s o f w h e t h e r t h e husband o r w i f e d i e d
p r i o r t o payment i n f u l l o f a l l s i x t y payments.
I n r e t u r n Thelma F r a u n h o f e r a g r e e d t o t r a n s f e r a l l
s t o c k i n Montana Plumbing h e l d j o i n t l y o r s o l e l y i n h e r
name, and a l l i n t e r e s t i n f a r m m a c h i n e r y , e q u i p m e n t , and
p e r s o n a l p r o p e r t y l o c a t e d o n t h e r a n c h p r o p e r t y t o Omar
Fraunhofer .
No a p p e a l w a s t a k e n from t h e d e c r e e , a n d t h e f i n a l
i n s t a l l m e n t u n d e r t h e a g r e e m e n t was p a i d o n F e b r u a r y 1,
1976. On J a n u a r y 3, 1977, Omar F r a u n h o f e r d i e d , and Donald
L. Price, p l a i n t i f f ' s b r o t h e r , w a s appointed p e r s o n a l r e p r e -
s e n t a t i v e o f h i s e s t a t e on J a n u a r y 1 0 , 1977. Almost n i n e
months l a t e r , o n O c t o b e r 24, 1977, Thelma F r a u n h o f e r f i l e d a
m o t i o n i n C i v i l Cause Number 72791-C, Omar C . F r a u n h o f e r v .
Thelma L. F r a u n h o f e r , f o r s u b s t i t u t i o n of d e c e d e n t ' s p e r -
sonal r e p r e s e n t a t i v e t o defend a g a i n s t her attached p e t i -
tion. The p e t i t i o n r a i s e d e s s e n t i a l l y t h e same c l a i m s a s
t h e complaint i n t h e i n s t a n t case, b u t t h e D i s t r i c t Court
d e n i e d t h e motion on November 1 0 , 1977, f i n d i n g t h e r e was no
pending c l a i m o r c a u s e . Thelma F r a u n h o f e r d i d n o t a p p e a l
t h a t order.
On December 8, 1977, p l a i n t i f f f i l e d a c o m p l a i n t com-
mencing t h i s a c t i o n a g a i n s t d e c e d e n t ' s p e r s o n a l r e p r e s e n t a -
tive. The c o m p l a i n t c o n s i s t e d of t h r e e c l a i m s . The f i r s t
c l a i m a t t a c k e d t h e d i v o r c e d e c r e e and t h e s e t t l e m e n t a g r e e -
ment on grounds o f f r a u d . I t asked t h a t t h e d e c r e e and
agreement b e d e c l a r e d v o i d and t h a t p l a i n t i f f be adjudged
t h e widow o f t h e d e c e d e n t and t h e r e b y e n t i t l e d t o a l l o f t h e
b e n e f i t s a c c o r d e d a s u r v i v i n g spouse. The second c l a i m
a t t a c k e d o n l y t h e s e t t l e m e n t agreement, a s k i n g t h a t t h e
agreement be r e s c i n d e d and a new d i v i s i o n of p r o p e r t y b e
made between p l a i n t i f f and t h e d e c e d e n t . The t h i r d c l a i m
a f f i r m e d b o t h t h e d e c r e e and t h e a g r e e m e n t , a l l e g e d a change
i n c i r c u m s t a n c e s , and a s k e d t h a t t h e p r o v i s i o n i n t h e set-
t l e m e n t agreement p r o v i d i n g f o r "alimony" b e m o d i f i e d i n
l i g h t of t h e changed c i r c u m s t a n c e s .
Defendant moved t o d i s m i s s t h e c o m p l a i n t , and h i s
motion was g r a n t e d w i t h l e a v e t o amend on F e b r u a r y 1 7 , 1978.
On March 9 , p l a i n t i f f f i l e d an amended c o m p l a i n t which
included f u r t h e r a l l e g a t i o n s . The amended c o m p l a i n t added
e s s e n t i a l l y two a l l e g a t i o n s t o t h e p r e v i o u s c o m p l a i n t .
F i r s t , i t a l l e g e d t h a t t h e f r a u d , d u r e s s , and undue i n f l u -
e n c e a t t r i b u t e d t o d e c e d e n t c o n t i n u e d from t h e t i m e of
e x e c u t i o n o f t h e agreement u n t i l d e c e d e n t ' s d e a t h . Second,
i t a l l e g e d t h a t d e c e d e n t , and t h e n d e f e n d a n t , made a s s u r -
a n c e s t o p l a i n t i f f t h a t s h e "would b e t a k e n c a r e o f . "
On May 31, 1978, two c l a i m s of t h e amended c o m p l a i n t
and a s u b s t a n t i a l p o r t i o n of t h e t h i r d c l a i m were d i s m i s s e d
by o r d e r o f t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t . P l a i n t i f f a p p e a l s from t h a t
order. She c o n t e n d s t h a t t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t e r r e d i n g r a n t -
i n g d e f e n d a n t ' s motion t o d i s m i s s w i t h r e s p e c t t o e a c h of
t h e t h r e e claims. W e w i l l d i s c u s s each claim s e p a r a t e l y , i n
t h e o r d e r t h e y were p r e s e n t e d t o t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t .
B e f o r e a d d r e s s i n g t h e c l a i m s d i r e c t l y , however, w e must
f i r s t mention some o f t h e r u l e s r e g a r d i n g t h e r o l e o f t h e
D i s t r i c t C o u r t i n r e v i e w i n g a motion t o d i s m i s s f o r f a i l u r e
t o s t a t e a c l a i m upon which r e l i e f c a n b e g r a n t e d .
Rule 1 2 ( b ) ( 6 ) , M.R.Civ.P., provides i n p e r t i n e n t p a r t :
". . . t h e f o l l o w i n g d e f e n s e s may a t t h e op-
t i o n of t h e p l e a d e r b e made by motion: ...
( 6 ) f a i l u r e t o s t a t e a c l a i m upon which r e -
l i e f can b e g r a n t e d . . ."
The g e n e r a l l y a c c e p t e d r u l e i s t h a t " a c o m p l a i n t s h o u l d
n o t b e d i s m i s s e d f o r f a i l u r e t o s t a t e a c l a i m u n l e s s i t ap-
p e a r s beyond d o u b t t h a t t h e p l a i n t i f f c a n p r o v e no s e t of
f a c t s i n s u p p o r t of h i s c l a i m which would e n t i t l e him t o
relief." Conley v . Gibson ( 1 9 5 7 ) , 355 U.S. 4 1 , 45-46, 78
S.Ct. 99, 102, 2 L Ed 2d 80, 8 4 ; Wheeler v . Moe ( 1 9 7 3 ) , 163
Mont. 154, 161, 515 P.2d 679, 683; Kielmann v . Mogan ( 1 9 7 0 ) ,
156 Mont. 230, 233, 478 P.2d 275, 276. For p u r p o s e s of t h e
motion t o d i s m i s s , t h e c o m p l a i n t i s t o b e c o n s t r u e d i n t h e
l i g h t most f a v o r a b l e t o t h e p l a i n t i f f and i t s a l l e g a t i o n s
a r e taken a s t r u e . J e n k i n s v . McKeithen ( 1 9 6 9 ) , 395 U.S.
4 1 1 , 4 2 1 , 89 S . C t . 1843, 1849, 23 L Ed 2d 4 0 4 , 416-17.
I n addressing p l a i n t i f f ' s f i r s t claim i n i t s order d i s -
missing t h e i n i t i a l complaint, t h e D i s t r i c t Court s t a t e d t h e
following a s i t s reasons:
" I n Montana t h e p e r i o d o f l i m i t a t i o n s a p p l i -
c a b l e t o c l a i m s grounded i n f r a u d i s two ( 2 )
y e a r s u n d e r S e c t i o n 93-2607(4) a n d t h e same
p e r i o d , by a n a l o g y , i s a p p l i c a b l e t o t h e e q u i -
t a b l e d e f e n s e o f l a c h e s . From t h e f a c e o f
P l a i n t i f f ' s complaint it i s clear t h a t ( a t
t h e l a t e s t ) t h e t i m e of t h e events t r i g g e r i n g
t h e running of t h i s period of l i m i t a t i o n s i s
February 19, 1971 w i t h r e s p e c t t o t h e a t t a c k
on t h e P r o p e r t y S e t t l e m e n t Agreement and March
25, 1 9 7 1 f o r t h e a t t a c k on t h e Decree. The
p e r i o d w i t h i n which P l a i n t i f f ' s a c t i o n must b e
f i l e d t h e r e f o r e e x p i r e d F e b r u a r y 1 9 , 1973 o r
a t t h e l a t e s t March 25, 1973.
". . . P l a i n t i f f ' s c o m p l a i n t c o n t a i n s no a l l e -
g a t i o n of j u s t i f i c a t i o n o r reasons f o r Plain-
t i f f ' s f a i l u r e t o take action with respect t o
t h e a l l e g e d f r a u d and d u r e s s w i t h i n t h e two
( 2 ) y e a r p e r i o d of l i m i t a t i o n s . . . It is
t h i s C o u r t ' s conclusion t h a t a l l of her claims
a r e b a r r e d by t h e S t a t e [ s i c ] of L i m i t a t i o n s
a s w e l l a s by P l a i n t i f f ' s l a c h e s , g r o u n d s f o r
which c o n c l u s i o n a p p e a r s a t i s f a c t o r i l y from t h e
f a c e of P l a i n t i f f ' s complaint.
"In addition, t h i s Court's e a r l i e r order i n the
d i v o r c e proceeding denying P l a i n t i f f ' s motion
t h e r e i n i s res j u d i c a t a as t o h e r r i g h t s on a l l
claims i n t h i s action . . ."
I n t h e amended c o m p l a i n t , f i l e d s u b s e q u e n t t o t h i s o r d e r ,
p l a i n t i f f included a l l e g a t i o n s t o m e e t t h e c o u r t ' s concerns:
"The d u r e s s , menace, f r a u d , f o r c e , a n d undue
i n f l u e n c e o n t h e p a r t o f Omar C . F r a u n h o f e r ,
a s a l l e g e d i n Paragraph V, d . , of t h i s Claim,
c o n t i n u e d from t h e t i m e o f t h e d i v o r c e and
s e t t l e m e n t agreement t o t h e t i m e of t h e d e a t h
o f Omar C . F r a u n h o f e r . I n a d d i t i o n , O m a r C.
Fraunhofer represented t o p l a i n t i f f during t h e
p e r i o d from t h e t i m e o f t h e d i v o r c e t o t h e t i m e
o f h i s d e a t h t h a t h e would see t o i t t h a t s h e
was a l w a y s t a k e n c a r e o f . F u r t h e r , a f t e r
Omar C. F r a u n h o f e r ' s d e a t h , Donald L. P r i c e
represented t o p l a i n t i f f , through a t h i r d p a r t y ,
t h a t s h e would b e t a k e n c a r e o f f i n a n c i a l l y .
For t h e s e reasons, p l a i n t i f f d i d n o t i n s t i t u t e
l e g a l proceedings o r otherwise a s s e r t her r i g h t s
b e f o r e O c t o b e r o f 1977, and d i d n o t b r i n g t h i s
a c t i o n , p u r s u a n t t o S e c t i o n 91A-3-804, RCIII,
1 9 4 7 , a s amended, u n t i l t h e d a t e o f t h e o r i g i n a l
complaint herein. Defendant i s t h e r e f o r e astopped
[ s i c ] from a s s e r t i n g a n y d e f e n s e b e a r i n g on t h e
t i m e l i n e s s of p l a i n t i f f ' s complaint."
I n response t o t h e s e f u r t h e r a l l e g a t i o n s , t h e D i s t r i c t
C o u r t , i n i t s o r d e r d i s m i s s i n g p l a i n t i f f ' s amended c l a i m ,
stated:
"The C o u r t c o n c l u d e s t h a t t h e s e a l l e g a t i o n s d o
n o t f u l f i l l t h e r e q u i r e m e n t s of Rule 9b and 9f
of t h e Montana Rules of C i v i l P r o c e d u r e w i t h re-
s p e c t t o a p l e a d i n g of f r a u d w i t h p a r t i c u l a r i t y
and a l l e g a t i o n s of m a t t e r s o f t i m e and p l a c e i n
a c a u s e where t h e e x i s t e n c e of d e f e n s e s of t h e
s t a t u t e o f l i m i t a t i o n s and l a c h e s a r e s o a p p a r e n t
on t h e f a c e o f t h e Complaint. The amendments t o
P l a i n t i f f ' s Complaint t h e r e f o r e have n o t c u r e d
t h e d e f e c t s i n t h e o r i g i n a l Complaint and t h e
Court accordingly adopts t h e conclusions s e t
f o r t h i n its e a r l i e r order."
Rule 9 ( b ) , M.R.Civ.P., provides:
" ( b ) FRAUD, MISTAKE, C O N D I T I O N OF THE M I N D . In
a l l averments o f f r a u d o r m i s t a k e , t h e circum-
s t a n c e s c o n s t i t u t i n g fraud o r mistake s h a l l be
s t a t e d w i t h p a r t i c u l a r i t y . M a l i c e , i n t e n t , know-
l e d g e , and o t h e r c o n d i t i o n o f mind of a p e r s o n
may b e a v e r r e d g e n e r a l l y . "
Rule 9 ( f ) , M.R.Civ.P., provides:
" ( f ) TIME AND PLACE. For t h e p u r p o s e of t e s t i n g
t h e s u f f i c i e n c y o f a p l e a d i n g , averments of t i m e
and p l a c e a r e m a t e r i a l and s h a l l b e c o n s i d e r e d
l i k e a l l o t h e r averments of m a t e r i a l m a t t e r . "
Taking t h e l a t t e r r u l e f i r s t , w e n o t e t h a t "Rule 9 ( f )
d o e s n o t r e q u i r e s p e c i f i c i t y i n p l e a d i n g t i m e and p l a c e , b u t
p r o v i d e s o n l y t h a t when s p e c i f i c a l l e g a t i o n s a r e made, t h e y
a r e m a t e r i a l ; whether o r n o t s p e c i f i c i t y i s r e q u i r e d i s t o
b e d e t e r m i n e d under t h e g e n e r a l r u l e s a s t o p l e a d i n g . "
Moore's F e d e r a l P r a c t i c e , Vol. 2A, 7[9.07, p . 1961. Rule
9 ( b ) , M.R.Civ.P., then, a p p l i e s t o t h i s s i t u a t i o n .
With r e s p e c t t o t h e r e q u i r e m e n t s of Rule 9 ( b ) , M.R.Civ.P.,
w e note t h e following:
"Of primary i m p o r t a n c e i n u n d e r s t a n d i n g t h e p a r t i -
c u l a r i t y r e q u i r e m e n t of Rule 9 ( b ) i s t h e r e c o g n i t i o n
t h a t it does n o t render t h e g e n e r a l p r i n c i p l e s s e t
f o r t h i n Rule 8 e n t i r e l y i n a p p l i c a b l e t o p l e a d i n g s
a l l e g i n g f r a u d ; r a t h e r , t h e two r u l e s must b e r e a d
i n conjunction with each o t h e r . I t should be k e p t
i n mind t h a t Rule 8 ( a ) r e q u e s t s ' a s h o r t and p l a i n
statement of t h e claim' f o r r e l i e f ... Thus, i t
i s i n a p p r o p r i a t e t o f o c u s e x c l u s i v e l y on t h e f a c t
t h a t Rule 9 ( b ) r e q u i r e s p a r t i c u l a r i t y i n p l e a d i n g
fraud. T h i s i s t o o narrow a n a p p r o a c h and f a i l s t o
t a k e a c c o u n t o f t h e g e n e r a l s i m p l i c i t y and f l e x i -
b i l i t y c o n t e m p l a t e d by t h e r u l e s .
"The s u f f i c i e n c y o f a p a r t i c u l a r p l e a d i n g u n d e r
R u l e 9 ( b ) d e p e n d s upon a number of v a r i a b l e s . For
example, t h e d e g r e e o f d e t a i l r e q u i r e d o f t e n t u r n s
o n t h e c o n t e x t i n which t h e f r a u d i s a l l e g e d t o
have o c c u r r e d ... P e r h a p s t h e most b a s i c c o n s i d -
e r a t i o n i n making a judgment a s t o t h e s u f f i c i e n c y
o f a p l e a d i n g i s t h e d e t e r m i n a t i o n o f how much de-
t a i l i s necessary t o g i v e adequate n o t i c e t o an
a d v e r s e p a r t y and e n a b l e him t o p r e p a r e a r e s p o n -
s i v e pleading." Wright & M i l l e r , F e d e r a l P r a c t i c e
and P r o c e d u r e : C i v i l S1298, p . 406-07, 410, 415.
W e f i n d t h a t p l a i n t i f f ' s f i r s t claim f o r r e l i e f i n t h e
i n s t a n t c a s e which a l l e g e s f r a u d upon t h e c o u r t i s s u f f i -
c i e n t l y d e t a i l e d i n t h e amended c o m p l a i n t t o s a t i s f y t h e
p a r t i c u l a r i t y r e q u i r e m e n t s of Rule 9 ( b ) , M.R.Civ.P.
W e further find that the additional allegations i n the
amended c o m p l a i n t a r e a d e q u a t e , when c o n s i d e r e d , a s t h e y
must b e , i n t h e l i g h t m o s t f a v o r a b l e t o p l a i n t i f f , t o d e f e a t
t h e s t a t u t e of l i m i t a t i o n s and l a c h e s d e f e n s e s mentioned i n
the D i s t r i c t Court's f i r s t order.
A t one p o i n t i n i t s o r i g i n a l o r d e r , t h e D i s t r i c t Court
s t a t e d t h e following :
". . . it i s t h i s C o u r t ' s c o n c l u s i o n t h a t P l a i n -
t i f f ' s unexcused f a i l u r e t o a c t w i t h i n t h e p e r i o d
of l i m i t a t i o n s , o r p r i o r t o t h e f u l l performance
o f t h e s e t t l e m e n t a g r e e m e n t , and p a r t i c u l a r l y p r i o r
t o the decedent's death, severly [sic] prejudices
t h e Defendant's a b i l i t y t o defend P l a i n t i f f ' s pur-
ported claims. "
A s noted previously, t h e a d d i t i o n a l a l l e g a t i o n s of
p l a i n t i f f ' s amended c o m p l a i n t e f f e c t i v e l y m e e t t h e d e f e n s e s
o f s t a t u t e of l i m i t a t i o n s and l a c h e s . Furthermore, t h e
D i s t r i c t C o u r t , by a d o p t i n g t h i s r a t i o n a l e by r e f e r e n c e i n
i t s second o r d e r , h a s made a n improper f i n d i n g o f f a c t when
i t r e f e r r e d t o p l a i n t i f f ' s "unexcused f a i l u r e t o a c t . " This
c l e a r l y c o n t r a d i c t s t h e a l l e g a t i o n s of t h e c o m p l a i n t .
F i n a l l y , a s t o t h e e f f e c t o f d e c e d e n t ' s d e a t h , w e have
s t a t e d , when f a c e d w i t h s i m i l a r c i r c u m s t a n c e s :
"Death o f one of t h e p a r t i e s t o a d i v o r c e a c t i o n ,
a f t e r decree t h e r e i n , does n o t deprive t h e t r i a l
c o u r t o f i t s power t o purge i t s r e c o r d s of a v o i d
o r v o i d a b l e d e c r e e p r o c u r e d by f r a u d p r a c t i c e d
upon i t . " G i l l e n v . G i l l e n ( 1 9 4 5 ) , 117 Mont. 496,
504, 159 P.2d 511, 514.
The o n l y o t h e r r e a s o n t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t gave f o r d i s -
m i s s i n g t h e f i r s t c l a i m of p l a i n t i f f ' s amended c o m p l a i n t was
" t h a t P l a i n t i f f ' s e f f o r t s t o s e t a s i d e t h e Decree o f d i v o r c e
with r e s p e c t t o her s t a t u s s o a s t o be r e s t o r e d t o t h e
r i g h t s of a s u r v i v i n g s p o u s e . . . are b a r r e d by S e c t i o n
9 1 ( A ) -2-802 ( 2 ) ( a ) of t h e Revised Codes of Montana (1947) . .
." S e c t i o n 91A-2-802 ( 2 ) ( a ) , now s e c t i o n 72-2-103 ( 2 ) ( a ) MCA,
provides:
"(2) . ..a surviving spouse does n o t include:
" ( a ) a p e r s o n who o b t a i n s o r c o n s e n t s t o a f i n a l
d e c r e e of judgment of d i v o r c e from t h e d e c e d e n t o r
a n annulment of t h e i r m a r r i a g e , which d e c r e e o r
judgment i s n o t r e c o g n i z e d a s v a l i d i n t h i s s t a t e ,
u n l e s s they subsequently p a r t i c i p a t e i n a marriage
ceremony p u r p o r t i n g t o marry e a c h t o t h e o t h e r , o r
s u b s e q u e n t l y l i v e t o g e t h e r a s man and w i f e . . ."
Along t h e s e l i n e s we f i n d t h a t t h e p h r a s e "which d e c r e e
o r judgment i s n o t r e c o g n i z e d a s v a l i d i n t h i s s t a t e , "
r e f e r s t o p r o c e d u r a l d e f e c t s which m i g h t b e found i n a n
otherwise v a l i d decree. The p h r a s e d o e s n o t c o n t e m p l a t e
d e c r e e s o b t a i n e d t h r o u g h f r a u d upon t h e c o u r t . As a result,
s e c t i o n 91A-2-802 does n o t apply t o a s i t u a t i o n involving
l a c k of voluntariness, a s i t u a t i o n l i k e t h a t presented i n
t h e i n s t a n t case.
C o n s e q u e n t l y , we f i n d t h a t t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t e r r e d i n
dismissing p l a i n t i f f ' s f i r s t claim.
I n d i s m i s s i n g p l a i n t i f f ' s second c l a i m , t h e c o u r t
stated:
". . . t h e second c l a i m i n P l a i n t i f f ' s Complaint
s e e k i n g r e s c i s s i o n of t h e p r o p e r t y s e t t l e m e n t
agreement a l s o f a i l s t o s t a t e a c l a i m upon which
r e l i e f can b e g r a n t e d b e c a u s e P l a i n t i f f h a s ac-
c e p t e d t h e f u l l b e n e f i t s of t h a t agreement and
decree confirming i t b u t has f a i l e d t o tender
r e t u r n of t h o s e b e n e f i t s o r a l l e g e any such o f f e r
t o r e s t o r e those b e n e f i t s t o t h e decedent o r t o
his estate. . ."
The r e q u i r e m e n t of r e t u r n of b e n e f i t s r e f e r r e d t o o r i g i n a t e s
i n s e c t i o n 13-905, R.C.M. 1947, now s e c t i o n 28-2-1713 MCA.
However, we f i n d t h a t p l a i n t i f f ' s second c l a i m more c l o s e l y
r e s e m b l e s a c l a i m under s e c t i o n 4 8 - 3 3 0 ( l ) (b) ( i i ) ,R.C.M.
1947, now s e c t i o n 40-4-208 (1)( b ) ( i i )MCA, which p r o v i d e s i n
pertinent part:
"(b) . .. The p r o v i s i o n s a s t o p r o p e r t y d i s p o s i -
t i o n may n o t b e revoked o r m o d i f i e d by a c o u r t ,
except:
" ( i i ) i f t h e c o u r t f i n d s t h e e x i s t e n c e of condi-
t i o n s t h a t j u s t i f y t h e r e o p e n i n g of a judgment
under t h e laws of t h i s s t a t e . "
When s o s t a t e d , p l a i n t i f f ' s second c l a i m s t a t e s a c l a i m upon
which r e l i e f c a n b e g r a n t e d p u r s u a n t t o Rule 6 0 ( b ) , M.R.Civ.P.,
which p r o v i d e s i n p e r t i n e n t p a r t :
"On motion and upon s u c h terms as a r e j u s t , t h e
c o u r t may r e l i e v e a p a r t y o r h i s l e g a l r e p r e s e n t a -
t i v e from a f i n a l judgment, o r d e r , o r p r o c e e d i n g
f o r t h e following reasons: . . . ( 3 ) f r a u d (whe-
t h e r h e r e t o f o r e denominated i n t r i n s i c o r e x t r i n s i c ) ,
m i s r e p r e s e n t a t i o n , o r o t h e r misconduct of an ad-
verse party. .. This r u l e does n o t l i m i t t h e
power of a c o u r t ... t o s e t a s i d e a judgment f o r
f r a u d upon t h e c o u r t . "
Therefore, w e f i n d t h a t t h e D i s t r i c t Court e r r e d i n dismis-
s i n g p l a i n t i f f ' s second c l a i m f o r r e l i e f .
Turning t o p l a i n t i f f ' s t h i r d c l a i m , t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t
f a i l e d t o s t a t e i t s reasons f o r dismissing t h e t h i r d claim
i n i t s o r d e r g r a n t i n g d e f e n d a n t ' s motion t o d i s m i s s . In its
p r i o r o r d e r , t h e D i s t r i c t Court s t a t e d t h e following with
r e s p e c t t o t h e t h i r d claim:
". . . There i s no a l l e g a t i o n t h a t a c r e d i t o r ' s
c l a i m f o r m o d i f i c a t i o n of ' a l i m o n y ' w a s p r e s e n t e d
t o 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 t h e d e c e d e n t ' s
e s t a t e and r e f u s e d a s r e q u i r e d by S e c t i o n 9 1 ( A ) -
3-803 of t h e Revised Codes o f Montana (1947) f o r
c l a i m s o t h e r t h a n t h o s e founded i n t o r t . Failure
t o a l l e g e p r e s e n t a t i o n of t h a t c l a i m a l o n e i s a
s u f f i c i e n t b a r t o t h i s c l a i m . F u r t h e r , i t i s ap-
p a r e n t from t h e f a c e of t h e P r o p e r t y S e t t l e m e n t
Agreement i t s e l f under t h e d e c i s i o n s i n Plontana
t h a t t h i s i s a f u l l y i n t e g r a t e d p r o p e r t y agreement
w i t h t h e r e s u l t t h a t whether o r n o t t h e payment
t o Thelma L. F r a u n h o f e r i s denominated ' a l i m o n y ' ,
t h e payment i s n o t s u b j e c t t o m o d i f i c a t i o n . Such
a c o n c l u s i o n i s a l s o s u p p o r t a b l e under t h e Montana
Uniform M a r r i a g e and Divorce Act by v i r t u e of t h e
a d m o n i t i o n c o n t a i n e d i n t h e agreement i t s e l f a g a i n s t
m o d i f i c a t i o n by t h e p a r t i e s and t h e f a c t t h a t no
p o r t i o n of t h e payment remained u n p a i d a t t h e t i m e
t h e r e q u e s t f o r m o d i f i c a t i o n was made."
S e c t i o n 91A-3-803(2), R.C.M. 1947, now s e c t i o n 72-3-
803 ( 2 ) MCA, p r o v i d e s i n p e r t i n e n t p a r t :
" ( 2 ) A l l claims against a decedent's e s t a t e . . .
which a r i s e a t o r a f t e r t h e d e a t h of t h e d e c e d e n t ,
. . . founded on c o n t r a c t o r o t h e r l e g a l b a s i s ,
a r e barred a g a i n s t t h e estate, t h e personal repre-
s e n t a t i v e , and t h e h e i r s and d e v i s e e s of t h e dece-
dent, unless presented a s follows:
" ( a ) a c l a i m based o n a c o n t r a c t w i t h 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 , w i t h i n f o u r ( 4 ) months a f t e r p e r -
formance by 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 i s due;
" ( b ) any o t h e r c l a i m , w i t h i n f o u r ( 4 ) months a f t e r
it arises. "
T h i s p r o v i s i o n , however, d o e s n o t a p p l y when p l a i n t i f f ' s
a l l e g a t i o n s a r e taken as t r u e , s p e c i f i c a l l y t h e following:
". . . a f t e r Omar C. F r a u n h o f e r ' s d e a t h , Donald
L. P r i c e represented t o p l a i n t i f f , through a
t h i r d p a r t y , t h a t s h e would b e t a k e n c a r e of
financially. For t h e s e r e a s o n s , p l a i n t i f f d i d
n o t i n s t i t u t e l e g a l proceedings o r otherwise
a s s e r t h e r r i g h t s b e f o r e October of 1977, and
d i d not bring t h i s a c t i o n , pursuant t o Section
91A-3-804, RCM, 1947, a s amended, u n t i l t h e d a t e
of t h e o r i g i n a l c o m p l a i n t h e r e i n . Defendant i s
t h e r e f o r e a s t o p p e d [ s i c ] from a s s e r t i n g any de-
f e n s e b e a r i n g on t h e t i m e l i n e s s of p l a i n t i f f ' s
complaint."
Taking t h i s a l l e g a t i o n a s t r u e , as w e must when c o n s i d e r i n g
a motion t o d i s m i s s , w e f i n d t h a t s e c t i o n 91A-3-803(2) does
n o t render p l a i n t i f f ' s claim d e f i c i e n t a t t h e pleading
stage.
The n e x t q u e s t i o n w e m u s t a d d r e s s i s w h e t h e r t h i s i s a
f u l l y i n t e g r a t e d p r o p e r t y s e t t l e m e n t o r alimony. he f a c t
t h a t t h e a g r e e m e n t employed t h e t e r m a l i m o n y and was d r a f t e d
by d e c e d e n t ' s a t t o r n e y i n d i c a t e s t h a t t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t i n
t h e i n s t a n t c a s e h a s made a n i m p e r m i s s i b l e f i n d i n g o f f a c t
- -e p l e a d i n g s t a g e . The p a r t i e s ' s e t t l e m e n t a g r e e m e n t
a t th
m u s t b e c o n s t r u e d and e n f o r c e d a c c o r d i n g t o t h e t e r m s e m -
ployed. A c o u r t h a s no r i g h t t o i n t e r p r e t t h e a g r e e m e n t a s
meaning s o m e t h i n g d i f f e r e n t from what t h e p a r t i e s i n t e n d e d
a s e x p r e s s e d by t h e l a n g u a g e t h e y saw f i t t o employ. Jones
v . F l a s t e d ( 1 9 7 6 ) , 169 Mont. 60, 6 4 , 544 P.2d 1 2 3 1 , 1233.
The n e x t q u e s t i o n w e f a c e , t h e n , i s , p r o v i d i n g p l a i n -
t i f f i s a b l e t o p r o v e a t t r i a l t h a t t h i s payment was a l i m o n y ,
c a n t h e payment b e m o d i f i e d when i t i s c u r r e n t l y , i n e f f e c t ,
zero dollars.
S e c t i o n 4 8 - 3 3 0 ( 1 ) ( a ) , R.C.M. 1 9 4 7 , now s e c t i o n 40-4-
208 (1) a ) MCA, p r o v i d e s i n p e r t i n e n t p a r t :
(
"(1) ... t h e p r o v i s i o n s of a n y d e c r e e r e s p e c t i n g
m a i n t e n a n c e o r s u p p o r t may b e m o d i f i e d by a c o u r t
only a s t o i n s t a l l m e n t s accruing subsequent t o t h e
motion f o r m o d i f i c a t i o n ...
" ( a ) upon a showing o f changed c i r c u m s t a n c e s s o
s u b s t a n t i a l a n d c o n t i n u i n g a s t o make t h e t e r m s
unconscionable . . ."
W e f i n d n o t h i n g i n t h i s s t a t u t e which r e q u i r e s t h a t t h e r e b e
payments c u r r e n t l y a c c r u i n g . The l a n g u a g e o f t h e s t a t u t e
p r e c l u d e s m o d i f i c a t i o n o f payments whose d u e d a t e h a s p a s s e d
but that is all. The f a c t , t h e r e f o r e , t h a t p l a i n t i f f i s n o t
c u r r e n t l y r e c e i v i n g payments u n d e r t h e o r i g i n a l d e c r e e d o e s
n o t of n e c e s s i t y p r e c l u d e h e r from e v e r r e c e i v i n g a n addi-
t i o n a l award o f m a i n t e n a n c e . This i s e s p e c i a l l y t r u e i n
l i g h t of t h e v a r i o u s a l l e g a t i o n s of f r a u d contained i n t h e
complaint.
F i n a l l y , t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t s t a t e d i n summary t h a t i t s
". . . e a r l i e r o r d e r i n t h e d i v o r c e proceeding denying
P l a i n t i f f ' s motion t h e r e i n i s res judicata a s t o her rights
on a l l claims i n t h i s a c t i o n . . ." The i s s u e s p r e s e n t e d i n
t h e i n s t a n t c a s e by p l a i n t i f f ' s amended c o m p l a i n t w e r e n o t
raised i n t h a t action. That order dismissing t h e claim
f i l e d i n t h e d i v o r c e p r o c e e d i n g t h e n , c o u l d n o t h a v e been
t h e r e s u l t o f a n a d j u d i c a t i o n of t h e m e r i t s o f t h e i s s u e s i n
t h e i n s t a n t c a s e and c o u l d n o t b e r e s j u d i c a t a a s t o them.
The o r d e r o f t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t g r a n t i n g d e f e n d a n t ' s
m o t i o n t o d i s m i s s i s r e v e r s e d , and p l a i n t i f f ' s c o m p l a i n t i s
r e i n s t a t e d f o r f u r t h e r proceedings n o t i n c o n s i s t e n t with
t h i s opinion.
?lw%b~_\-ile
Honor b l e James B . W h e e l i s , D i s -
trict kudge, s i t t i n g f o r M r .
J u s t i c John C. H a r r i s o n
W e concur:
83&$$4,4
Chief J u s t i c e
q4-&- Justices
Mr. J u s t i c e D a n i e l J . Shea d i d n o t p a r t i c i p a t e .