No. 12941
I N T E SUPREME C U T O THE STATE O M N A A
H OR F F OTN
ELTA JONES, A d m i n i s t r a t r i x of
t h e E s t a t e of E s t h e r F l a s t e d ,
Deceased,
P l a i n t i f f and A p p e l l a n t ,
MERLE K. FLASTED,
Defendant and ~ e s p o n d e n t .
Appeal from: D i s t r i c t Court o f t h e S i x t e e n t h J u d i c i a l D i s t r i c t ,
Honorable A. B. Martin, Judge p r e s i d i n g .
Counsel of Record:
For Appellant :
Denzil R. Young argued, Baker, Montana
R. A. Smiley argued, B e l l e Fourche, South Dakota
For Respondent :
Gene Huntley argued, Baker, Montana
--
Submitted: November 12, 1975
Decided: J N 1 4 1976
A
Filed : JAN 14 9976
M r . J u s t i c e Gene B . Daly d e l i v e r e d t h e Opinion o f t h e Court.
T h i s i s 'an a p p e a l from a judgment o f t h e d i s t r i c t
c o u r t , C a r t e r County, s i t t i n g w i t h o u t a c o n s t r u i n g t h e terms
o f a d i v o r c e agreement e n t i t l e d "PROPERTY SETTLEMENT", t h e t e r m s
o f which were i n c o r p o r a t e d i n t h e d e c r e e of d i v o r c e .
On September 27, 1960, E s t h e r F l a s t e d and Merle F l a s ted
were d i v o r c e d . I n t h a t d e c r e e t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t found t h a t Merle
and E s t h e r had e n t e r e d i n t o a w r i t t e n p r o p e r t y s e t t l e m e n t . The
c o u r t decreed :
"* *ik t h a t t h e Court a d o p t s t h e p r o p e r t y s e t t l e m e n t
agreement and t h a t t h e p l a i n t i f f [ E s t h e r ] i s allowed
t h e sum o f $250.00 a month f o r h e r s u p p o r t commencing
September 1, 1960, a s alimony 9
; * " *.
The r e m a i n i n g p o r t i o n o f t h e d e c r e e merely r e i t e r a t e d t h e terms
o f t h e agreement.
Inasmuch a s t h e wording o f t h a t agreement i s t h e b a s i s
f o r t h e a c t i o n now under c o n s i d e r a t i o n , we s e t f o r t h t h e agreement
in full:
"This agreement between E s t h e r F l a s t e d and Merle
F l a s ted :
SSETH :
" A s a p r o p e r t y s e t t l e m e n t t h e Defendant a g r e e s
t o pay t o t h e P l a i n t i f f t h e sum o f $250.00 a month
commencing September 1, 1960, f o r a t e r m o f 20 y e a r s
a s alimony, r e g a r d l e s s of t h e s t a t u t e s and whether
she remarries o r t h e Defendant's death, with t h e f i r s t
t h r e e ( 3 ) y e a r s of t h e monthly payments payable i n
advance f o r t h w i t h i n t h e lump sum o f $9,000. I n a d d i -
t i o n , t h e P l a i n t i f f i s t o r e c e i v e one h a l f o f a l l income
from any o i l o r m i n e r a l l e a s e s i n c l u d i n g r o y a l t y , bonus,
and r e n t a l s from r e a l e s t a t e s t a n d i n g o f r e c o r d i n t h e
d e f e n d a n t ' s name.
"1n a d d i t i o n , IT I S FURTHER AGREED t h a t t h e d e f e n d a n t
s h a l l d e l i v e r t o t h e P l a i n t i f f t h e p o s s e s s i o n , on o r be-
f o r e October 1 0 , 1960, c e r t a i n p e r s o n a l p r o p e r t y b e l o n g i n g
t o t h e P l a i n t i f f c o n s i s t i n g o f : Dishes, Silverware,
L i n e n s , T e l e v i s i o n s e t , and b r i c - a - b r a c , c h o i c e o f any
bed and c h a i r . A f t e r t h e lump sum payment t h e $250.00
a month payments t o commence October 1, 1963 and on t h e
f i r s t day o f e a c h month t h e r e a f t e r , and
"IT I S FURTHER AGREED t h a t t h e payments h e r e i n
provided s h a l l b e a l i e n upon any r e a l e s t a t e o f r e -
cord i n t h e name of t h e ~ e f e n d a n t"
.
Merle, t h e husband, abided by t h e terms of t h e agreement
up t o t h e time E s t h e r , t h e w i f e , d i e d on A p r i l 23, 1971. Since
then Merle has ceased making any i n s t a l l m e n t o r p e r i o d i c payments.
E l l a Jones, s i s t e r of E s t h e r F l a s t e d , was appointed a d m i n i s t r a -
t r i x of E s t h e r ' s e s t a t e . E l l a commenced t h i s a c t i o n claiming
t h e e s t a t e was e n t i t l e d t o r e c e i v e E s t h e r ' s i n t e r e s t under t h e above
agreement.
The a d m i n i s t r a t r i x contends t h a t t h e agreement: (1)
conveys an undivided one-half ownership i n a l l mineral r i g h t s
h e l d by t h e F l a s t e d s ' a t t h e time of t h e d i v o r c e i n 1960; and
(2) i s a c o n t r a c t t o g i v e t h e divorced w i f e an amount e q u a l t o
one-half of t h e v a l u e o f t h e F l a s t e d p r o p e r t y a t t h e time of t h e
d i v o r c e and i s t h e r e f o r e n o t terminable upon Esther's d e a t h b u t
i s now payable t o E s t h e r ' s e s t a t e .
Defendant Merle contends t h a t t h e agreement was merely
an agreement t o provide support o r alimony f o r h i s ex-wife and
h i s o b l i g a t i o n s under t h e c o n t r a c t terminated when t h e o b j e c t of
t h e support became deceased.
A f t e r t r i a l , t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t e n t e r e d t h e s e conclusions
o f law:
1 That t h e alimony p r o v i s i o n contained i n t h e
agreement i s a c o n t r a c t u a l and i n t e g r a l p a r t of t h e
agreement a r i s i n g from claims of t h e p a r t i e s a t t h e
time of d i v o r c e , and t h e same cannot be ignored o r
modified without t h e consent of t h e p a r t i e s t h e r e t o .
"11. That t h e words, ' a s alimony' were intended
t o cover t h e contingency of E s t h e r F l a s t e d ' s d e a t h ,
s p e c i f i c r e f e r e n c e t o t h a t contingency having n o t
otherwise been s p e l l e d o u t i n t h e agreement.
"111. That t h e b e n e f i t s c o n f e r r e d upon E s t h e r
F,lasted by t h e agreement and d e c r e e of d i v o r c e were
f o r h e r support u n t i l h e r d e a t h , o r f o r a period o f
twenty y e a r s , whichever occurred f i r s t .
"IV. That t h e phrase ' r e g a r d l e s s of s t a t u t e s ' i s
n o t i n c o n s i s t e n t w i t h t h e p r o v i s i o n made by t h e
p a r t i e s and t h e d i v o r c e d e c r e e f o r support of E s t h e r
Flasted.
"1
1, While t h e agreement r e c i t e s t h a t i t c o n s t i t u t e s
a 1 p r o p e r t y s e t t l e m e n t , ' t h e p r o v i s i o n s contained
t h e r e i n r e f e r only t o m a t t e r s concerning E s t h e r
~ l a s t e d ' ssupport. This same o b j e c t i v e i s a l s o ex-
pressed i n t h e complaint and d e c r e e f i l e d i n t h e d i -
vorce a c t i o n . The Court concludes t h a t t h e l a b e l
1 property settlement' must y i e l d t o t h e e x p r e s s i o n s
v a r i o u s l y claimed and made f o r s u p p o r t of E s t h e r
Flasted.
"VI. That t h e p r o v i s i o n s g i v i n g E s t h e r F l a s t e d one-
h a l f of t h e income from o i l and mineral l e a s e s does
n o t convey a f e e t i t l e t o m i n e r a l s , b u t a s s i g n e d o n l y
what t h e agreement p r o v i d e s , a one-half i n t e r e s t i n
t h e income, and t h a t t h i s was intended a s a d d i t i o n a l
support f o r E s t h e r F l a s t e d d u r i n g h e r l i f e time, b u t
n o t t o exceed twenty y e a r s .
r r ~ T hw r e f o r e , I t Is Hereby Adjudged and Decreed
~ e
"I. That t h e p l a i n t i f f t a k e n o t h i n g by h e r complaint.
"2. That t h e defendant have h i s c o s t s .
"3. That t h e i n t e r e s t of E s t h e r F l a s t e d of mineral
income from d e f e n d a n t ' s p r o p e r t y provided f o r i n t h e
annexed agreement terminated on h e r death and a s of
A p r i l 23, 1971.
"4. That t h e o b l i g a t i o n of support of Merle K. F l a s t e d
toward E s t h e r F l a s t e d terminated on h e r d e a t h , A p r i l
23, 1971."
P l a i n t i f f f i l e d exceptions t o t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t ' s f i n d i n g s
of f a c t and c o n c l u s i o n s of law. The e x c e p t i o n s were disallowed
except f o r t h e c o r r e c t i o n of a minor e r r o r and p l a i n t i f f appealed
t o t h i s Court from t h e f i n a l judgment.
The i s s u e p r e s e n t e d f o r review i s whether t h e above quoted
agreement passed permanent and c o n t i n u i n g p r o p e r t y r i g h t s t o t h e
ex-wife E s t h e r o r gave E s t h e r only alimony r i g h t s t e r m i n a t i n g
upon h e r d e a t h .
A t t h e o u t s e t , we n o t e i n examining t h e agreement of t h e
p a r t i e s , t h e language of 17 Am.JurS2d, C o n t r a c t s , $ 5 242,245, pp.
":
f f
:* I t must be construed and enforced according
t o t h e terms employed, and 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 agreement a s meaning something d i f f e r e n t
from what t h e p a r t i e s intended a s expressed by t h e
language t h e y saw f i t t o employ. 9 f: : *
":
9 * t h e o b j e c t t o be a t t a i n e d i n c o n s t r u i n g a
c o n t r a c t i s t o a s c e r t a i n t h e meaning and i n t e n t
of t h e p a r t i e s a s expressed i n t h e language used
and t o g i v e e f f e c t t o such i n t e n t i f i t does n o t
c o n f l i c t w i t h any r u l e of law, good morals, o r p u b l i c
p o l i c y . 11
I n r e g a r d t o t h e o i l l e a s e s t h e a d m i n i s t r a t r i x contends
t h a t e x h i b i t s and testimony b e f o r e t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t showing
t h a t E s t h e r signed a t l e a s t t h r e e o i l and gas l e a s e s and t h e
t h e agreement a s conveying an undivided one-half i n t e r e s t i n t h e
mineral r i g h t s .
E s t h e r " d i d n ' t have t o s i g n them.
d i d n ' t sign.
i;
' *
II
,
;'c. and t h a t , i f an instrument has no words
of conveyance, t h e c o u r t s have no r i g h t t o put
them i n by i n t e r p r e t a t i o n * 9;.
of t h e g r a n t o r i n a deed i s t o be gathered from a
.c+
f a c t t h a t she had r e c e i v e d r e n t a l s on t h e s e l e a s e s p o i n t s t o a
c o n c l i ~ s i o nt h a t 14erle and E s t h e r by t h e i r conduct i n t e r p r e t e d
l l e r l e ' s testimony on t h i s p o i n t i s t o t h e e f f e c t t h a t
There was a l o t of them she
I t was never shown t h a t E s t h e r signed
The i n t e n t i o n
leases.
The f a c t t h a t E s t h e r r e c e i v e d r e n t s from t h e l e a s e s i n d i c a t e s
n o t h i n g more than t h a t t h e terms of t h e agreement were being
abided b y - - i t i n d i c a t e s no proof of ownership.
I n any c a s e , t h i s i s n o t s u f f i c i e n t t o t r a n s f e r t h e claimed
i n t e r e s t t o t h e divorced w i f e .
Mont. 222, 234, 266 P. 406, t h i s Court observed:
II
I n Hochsprung v. Stevenson, 82
I t i s a s a g e n e r a l r u l e n e c e s s a r y t h a t a deed
c o n t a i n o p e r a t i v e words of g r a n t ? it , tha.t a
deed without words of conveyance p a s s e s no t i t l e
;
c o n s i d e r a t i o n of t h e e n t i r e i n s t r u m e n t , t a k i n g i n t o
c o n s i d e r a t i o n a l l of i t s p r o v i s i o n s , and every p a r t
must be given e f f e c t i f r e a s o n a b l y p r a c t i c a b l e and
c o n s i s t e n t w i t h i t s e v i d e n t purpose and o p e r a t i o n ,
I
n o t , indeed a s i t i s presented i n p a r t i c u l a r sen-
t e n c e s o r paragraphs, b u t according t o i t s e f f e c t
when viewed a s an e n t i r e t y . ' (R. M. Cobban Realt):
Co. v. Donlan, 5 1 Mont. 58, 149 Pac. 484 9; 9; f : . )
Taking t h i s agreement by i t s f o u r c o r n e r s , we do n o t f i n d
e i t h e r words o r meaning evidencing an i n t e n t t o convey an undivided
one-half i n t e r e s t i n mineral r i g h t s . R a t h e r , t h e language i s c l e a r
and unambiguous--the ex-wife was t o r e c e i v e one-half t h e income
from t h e mineral r e n t a l s f o r h e r support and n o t t o exceed
20 y e a r s .
The a d m i n i s t r a t r i x f u r t h e r contends t h a t (1) t h e t i t l e
of t h e agreement, i . e . , "PROPERTY SETTLEMENT", (2) t h e phrase
It
a s a p r o p e r t y s e t t l e m e n t " i n t h e f i r s t s e n t e n c e , (3) t h e phrase
" r e g a r d l e s s of t h e s t a t u t e s o r whether she r e m a r r i e s o r t h e
d e f e n d a n t ' s death", and (4) t h e f a c t t h a t t h e payments t o t a l $60,000
o v e r a 20 y e a r p e r i o d ($60,000 a l l e g e d l y b e i n g one-half t h e v a l u e
of t h e F l a s t e d p r o p e r t y a t t h e time of t h e d i v o r c e ) a l l taken
t o g e t h e r l e a d t o t h e conclusion t h a t t h e agreement i s a d i v i s i o n
of p r o p e r t y , a p r o p e r t y s e t t l e m e n t , and n o t merely an agreement
f o r support.
There i s a d i s t i n c t i o n between a p r o p e r t y s e t t l e m e n t on
t h e one hand, and a c o n t r a c t t o pay s t a t e d sums p e r i o d i c a l l y i n
l i e u of alimony on t h e o t h e r hand. T h i s Court s t a t e d i n S t e f o n i c k
v. S t e f o n i c k , 118 Mont. 486, 501, 167 P. 2d 848:
II
It i s w e l l s e t t l e d t h a t i n t h i s j u r i s d i c t i o n alimony
i s no way a p r o p e r t y s e t t l e m e n t , b u t i s t h e p r o v i s i o n
made f o r t h e support of t h e w i f e . ik
This i s t r u e whether t h e alimony award i s made payable i n i n s t a l l -
ments o r i n a lump sum. Alimony payable i n i n s t a l l m e n t s i s
p r e f e r r e d under under Montana c a s e law. S t e f o n i c k v. S t e f o n i c k ,
s u p r a ; S t a t e ex r e l . Tong v. D i s t r i c t Court, 109 Mont. 4.18, 96 P.
2d 918; B r i s t o l v. B r i s t o l , 65 Mont. 508, 211 P. 205; Lewis v.
Lewis, 109 Mont. 42, 94 P.2d 211.
O t h e o t h e r hand, a p r o p e r t y s e t t l e m e n t s e t t l e s p r o p e r t y
n
r i g h t s and may o r may n o t mention t h e a d d i t i o n a l item of alimony.
I n 24 Am.Jur.2d, Divorce and S e p a r a t i o n , 5 883, p. 1003, i t i s
stated:
'I* 9: * Commonly, such a s e t t l e m e n t (1) determines
t h e r i g h t s of t h e p a r t i e s i n j o i n t l y owned p r o p e r t y
and s t a t e s t h e d i s p o s i t i o n t o b e made of i t ; (2)
s e t t l e s a l l c l a i m s of each spouse i n t h e p r o p e r t y of
t h e o t h e r and c l a i m s of each spouse t o t i t l e t o p r o p e r t y
h e l d i n t h e name of t h e o t h e r ; (3) mutually r e l e a s e s
a l l p a s t and p r e s e n t claims except a s e s t a b l i s h e d by
t h e agreement; (4) waives and r e l e a s e s a l l
f u t u r e r i g h t s a s spouse i n t h e p r o p e r t y of each
o t h e r ; (5) s u r r e n d e r s t h e r i g h t s of each on t h e
d e a t h of t h e o t h e r , i n c l u d i n g r i g h t s of i n h e r i -
t a n c e , homestead, dower, and t h e r i g h t t o a d m i n i s t e r
t h e e s t a t e of t h e o t h e r and t o have exemptions and
allowances from t h e e s t a t e ; and (6) a g r e e s t h a t each
w i l l e x e c u t e a l l documents n e c e s s a r y o r d e s i r a b l e t o
c a r r y o u t t h e purposes of t h e agreement. I I
The a d m i n i s t r a t r i x c i t e s Wa.shington v. Washington, 162
Mont. ,349, 512 P.2d 1300, a s a "case p r a c t i c a l l y on a l l f o u r s w i t h
t h e i n s t a n t case." W do n o t a g r e e .
e The s i x elements commonly
found i n a p r o p e r t y s e t t l e m e n t agreement [24 Am.Jur.2d, Divorce
and S e p a r a t i o n , 5 883, p. 10031 a r e a.11 i n Washington.
I n c o n t r a s t , t h e "PROPERTY SETTLEMENT" agreement h e r e
involved s a t i s f i e s none o f t h e s i x named elements. Except f o r
t h e d i s p o s i t i o n of c e r t a i n minor p e r s o n a l p r o p e r t y , t h e r e i s no
mention of t h e p a r t i e s f r i g h t s i n t h e r a n c h , l i v e s t o c k , house,
the
d e b t s , e t c . ~ o t w i t h s t a n d i n g /agreement's t i t l e , and n o t w i t h s t a n d i n g
t h e a d m i n i s t r a t r i x ' s o t h e r c o n t e n t i o n s , t h i s agreement--by i t s
o ~ mlanguage---does n o t t r a n s f e r any p r o p e r t y r i g h t s . It i s
p u r e l y and simply a c o n t r a c t t o provide support f o r t h e ex-wife,
t h e support t o c o n t i n u e f o r 20 y e a r s i f s h e should l i v e t h a t long.
The c o n t r a c t t h e r e f o r e , by i t s very n a t u r e , i s p e r s o n a l t o t h e
ex-wife and must t e r m i n a t e upon h e r d e a t h .
The judgment of t h e