11/22/2016
DA 15-0800
Case Number: DA 15-0800
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA
2016 MT 304N
IN THE MATTER OF THE ESTATE OF
WILLIAM A. BROCK,
Deceased.
-------------------------------------------
CHRISTINE TREXLER,
Appellant,
v.
JESSICA A. VERNON,
Appellee and Cross-Appellant.
APPEAL FROM: District Court of the Sixth Judicial District,
In and For the County of Park, Cause No. DP 14-16
Honorable Brenda Gilbert, Presiding Judge
COUNSEL OF RECORD:
For Appellant:
Christine Trexler, self-represented, Wilmington, Delaware
For Appellee:
Ralph W. Steele, Ralph W. Steele, P.C., Bozeman, Montana
Submitted on Briefs: November 16, 2016
Decided: November 22, 2016
Filed:
__________________________________________
Clerk
Justice Jim Rice delivered the Opinion of the Court.
¶1 Pursuant to Section I, Paragraph 3(c), 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 In this appeal, made pursuant to M. R. App. P. 6(4), from an order entered in an
estate matter, Appellant Christine Trexler challenges that portion of the order entered by
the District Court on November 24, 2015, which removed her as a Co-Personal
Representative of the Estate of William A. Brock, and ordered Co-Personal
Representative Jessica A. Vernon, Appellee, to continue as the sole Personal
Representative of the Estate. Vernon cross-appeals the District Court’s determination not
to grant her attorney fees in this matter. Trexler, who resides in Maryland, and Vernon,
who resides in Delaware, are sisters, and William A. Brock was their father.
¶3 Mr. Brock passed away on March 25, 2014. He owned a residence in Gardiner,
Montana, where he was domiciled, which is the only remaining asset of his estate of
substantial value. When their initial efforts found no will or testamentary instrument of
Mr. Brock, Vernon and Trexler petitioned and were appointed Co-Personal
Representatives in intestacy for their father’s estate on April 2, 2014. Later, a will of
Mr. Brock’s was discovered that named the sisters as Co-Personal Representatives of his
estate. The will was filed with the court a year later, on April 21, 2015. It does not
2
appear that a petition for probate of the will has been filed, as the matter quickly
devolved into litigation over who should continue as personal representative, with
Vernon seeking removal of both herself and Trexler in favor of appointment of
Mr. Brock’s brother, an attorney, citing a breakdown in communications between the
sisters and accusations about the handling of the will. Trexler objected to this petition,
and a hearing was conducted on April 21, 2015. During the hearing, the parties decided
to enter a stipulation whereby the sisters would continue to serve as Co-Personal
Representatives “for purposes of completing the informal probate process,” presumably
meaning informal probate of Mr. Brock’s will.
¶4 However, processing of estate matters did not improve after the settlement of the
administrative dispute by way of the stipulation. A two month delay was occasioned by
continued discussions and the effort to secure Trexler’s signature on the stipulation,
which was eventually filed with the court on June 29, 2015. Other disputes and delays
occurred, some related to problems associated with preparing the property for sale,
leading to Vernon’s petition for removal of Trexler in September 2015, which was heard
by the District Court on November 4, 2015.
¶5 The District Court entered a written order on November 24, 2015, but entered
most of its findings of fact verbally at the conclusion of the hearing, which it incorporated
in its written order. Stating that “it appears to the Court that the problems with
communication have been overwhelmingly on the part of Ms. Trexler failing to respond,
failing to sign documents, or respond with her objections to them,” the Court concluded
3
that termination of Trexler’s appointment as Co-Personal Representative was in the best
interests of the Estate, and that cause for removal under § 72-3-526, MCA, had been
established. The Court also granted the request for enforcement of the stipulation and
that the listing and sale of the subject property would “proceed forward” with Vernon as
sole Personal Representative.
¶6 Trexler dissects the District Court’s findings to offer her explanation for delays,
which she argues were largely out of her control, and discusses at length the problems
associated with properly preparing the property for sale. Trexler contends that cause for
removal under § 72-3-526(1), MCA, and In re Estate of Hannum, 2012 MT 171, 366
Mont. 1, 285 P.3d 463, was not demonstrated because there were legitimate reasons for
any delays and that her efforts have not harmed the Estate or breached a fiduciary duty.
¶7 We have determined to decide this case pursuant to Section I, Paragraph 3(c) of
our Internal Operating Rules, which provides for memorandum opinions. The District
Court’s findings of fact regarding Trexler’s actions are supported by substantial evidence.
The case presents a question controlled by settled law or by the clear application of
applicable standards of review. There was good cause for removal, and it was in the best
interest of the Estate, as the ineffectual administration was harmful to the Estate.
¶8 Regarding Vernon’s cross appeal, the District Court reserved ruling on the issue of
attorney fees “until a later time or upon conclusion of the Estate.” Thus, we decline to
review the fee matter at this time, and the issue is preserved for further review by the
District Court.
4
¶9 An order pending appeal was entered by the District Court pursuant to M. R.
Civ. P. 62.1 on November 14, 2016, regarding approval of the sale of the property now
scheduled for December 8, 2016. Because we are disposing of the appeal by this opinion,
we need not remand the matter solely for that purpose, but return the entire matter to the
District Court.
¶10 Affirmed and remanded to the District Court for further proceedings.
/S/ JIM RICE
We concur:
/S/ LAURIE McKINNON
/S/ BETH BAKER
/S/ PATRICIA COTTER
/S/ JAMES JEREMIAH SHEA
5