No. 14379
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA
1979
IN THE MATTER OF THE ESTATE
OF CHARLES LIVINGSTONE HOLMES,
deceased.
Appeal from: District Court of the Nineteenth Judicial ~istrict,
Honorable Robert M. Holter, Judge presiding.
Counsel of Record:
For Appellant:
Jardine, Stephenson, Blewett & Weaver, Great Falls,
Montana
Jack L. Lewis argued, Great Falls, Montana
For Respondent:
Fennessy, Crocker & Harman, Libby, Montana
Evans and German, Libby, Montana
Ann German argued, Libby, Montana
Submitted: June 14, 1979
Decided :
Filed: AUG 2 1q-q
;,
AOG 2 ;1979
". -
Mr. Justice John Conway Harrison delivered the Opinion of
the Court.
c his is an appeal from a District Court order finding
that the will of Charles Livingstone Holmes provided for a
charitable bequest within the purview of Montana's Mortmain
Statute and therefore was valid only as to one-third of the
decedent's estate and that the remaining two-thirds of the
estate should pass to the heirs of the decedent by operation
of law. The beneficiary of the charitable bequest negated
by the order, the Shriners Hospitals for Crippled Children,
appeals.
On January 5, 1978, just 12 days prior to his death,
Charles Holmes executed a last will in which he devised all
his property to the Shriners Crippled Children's Home of San
Francisco, California. The will acknowledged that dece-
dent's immediate family consisted of two adult sons but
specifically stated that no provisions be made for them.
Decedent had executed a prior will in 1977 in which he
disinherited his sons and left all his property to the
Shriners Hospitals after an intervening trust.
Following Holmes' death, the personal representative
named in his will petitioned for formal probate. The peti-
tion was set for hearing on March 23, 1978, and the Shriners
were notified of the hearing. At the hearing, decedent's
son, Charles Holmes, Jr., orally objected to the will on the
basis of lack of testamentary capacity. Shriners did not
appear at the hearing and were not given notice of the
objection to the will. The District Court took the matter
under advisement.
On April 24, 1978, the District Court entered an order
admitting the will to probate but declaring two-thirds of
t h e d e v i s e v o i d u n d e r s e c t i o n 72-11-334, MCA, Montana's
Mortmain S t a t u t e . The c l e r k o f c o u r t d i d n o t s e r v e n o t i c e
o f e n t r y o f t h e o r d e r on t h e S h r i n e r s . The p e r s o n a l r e p r e -
s e n t a t i v e d i d s e n d t h e S h r i n e r s a l e t t e r a d v i s i n g them o f
t h e v o i d a n c e of t w o - t h i r d s o f t h e b e q u e s t . They r e c e i v e d
t h e l e t t e r on May 5, 1978. On May 1 7 , 1978, t h e S h r i n e r s
appealed t h e m a t t e r t o t h i s Court.
A p p e l l a n t raises s e v e r a l i s s u e s o n a p p e a l i n c l u d i n g t h e
c o n s t i t u t i o n a l i t y o f t h e Mortmain S t a t u t e and i t s c o n t i n u e d
v a l i d i t y u n d e r t h e Montana Uniform P r o b a t e Code. Respon-
d e n t , C h a r l e s Holmes, J r . , a s s e r t s t h e Mortmain S t a t u t e i s
c o n s t i t u t i o n a l and v a l i d u n d e r M o n t a n a ' s Uniform P r o b a t e
Code. H e a l s o contends a p p e l l a n t cannot raise t h e chal-
l e n g e s t o t h e s t a t u t e f o r t h e f i r s t t i m e on appeal. We w i l l
f i r s t a d d r e s s t h e arguments concerning a p p e l l a n t ' s a b i l i t y
t o r a i s e t h e i s s u e s p e r t a i n i n g t o t h e v a l i d i t y o f t h e Mortmain
Statute.
Respondent c o n t e n d s t h a t s i n c e a p p e l l a n t made no ap-
pearance i n District Court t o r a i s e i t s challenges t o t h e
Mortmain S t a t u t e , w e l l - e s t a b l i s h e d p r i n c i p l e s of l a w prevent
i t from d o i n g s o o n a p p e a l . A p p e l l a n t a s s e r t s t h a t i t was
n o t given s u f f i c i e n t n o t i c e of t h e proceeding i n t h e D i s -
t r i c t Court t o a l l o w it t o p r e s e n t i t s arguments on t h e
v a l i d i t y o f t h e Mortmain S t a t u t e . A p p e l l a n t a r g u e s t h a t by
r a i s i n g t h e i s s u e s o n a p p e a l , i t raises them a t t h e f i r s t
opportunity afforded.
T h i s i s s u e c a n b e r e s o l v e d by c o n s i d e r i n g t h e n o t i c e
required a t d i f f e r e n t s t a g e s of formal probate proceeding
and t h e e f f e c t o f l a c k o f r e q u i r e d n o t i c e on any j u d i c i a l
a c t i o n taken a s a r e s u l t of t h e proceedings. When f o r m a l
p r o b a t e p r o c e e d i n g s b e g i n , t h e Montana Uniform P r o b a t e c o d e
( M U P C ) , s e c t i o n 72-3-305, MCA, sets o u t t h e n o t i c e r e q u i r e -
ments. The s e c t i o n s t a t e s n o t i c e o f t h e t i m e and p l a c e o f
t h e h e a r i n g on t h e p e t i t i o n f o r f o r m a l p r o b a t e s h a l l be
g i v e n t o p a r t i e s i n c l u d i n g t h e d e c e d e n t ' s h e i r s and d e v i s e e s
named i n any w i l l . The s t a t u t e e f f e c t i v e l y d e a l s w i t h t h e
n o t i c e r e q u i r e m e n t s a t t h e o u t s e t of f o r m a l p r o b a t e pro-
ceedings. I n t h i s c a s e , t h e s t a t u t e was complied w i t h a s
t h e S h r i n e r s were n o t i f i e d of t h e i n i t i a l h e a r i n g .
Next, t h e n o t i c e r e q u i r e d o f any w i l l c o n t e s t must be
considered. MUPC s e c t i o n 72-1-303, MCA, e n t i t l e d "Pleadings--
when o r d e r s o r n o t i c e b i n d i n g one b i n d s a n o t h e r - - r e p r e s e n -
t a t i o n , " d e a l s w i t h formal proceedings involving e s t a t e s .
S u b s e c t i o n ( 3 ) of t h a t p r o v i s i o n s t a t e s , " N o t i c e i s r e q u i r e d
a s follows: ( a ) N o t i c e as p r e s c r i b e d by 72-1-301 s h a l l be
given t o every i n t e r e s t e d person . . ." I n t e r e s t e d person
under t h e M P i n c l u d e s named d e v i s e e s .
UC S e c t i o n 72-1-
1 0 3 ( 2 1 ) , MCA. Although s u b s e c t i o n ( 3 ) d o e s n o t go on t o
s t a t e t h a t t h e n o t i c e r e q u i r e d by t h e s u b s e c t i o n means
n o t i c e of w i l l c o n t e s t s , t h e heading and c o n t e x t of t h e
section indicate the notice referred t o i n the statute is
n o t i c e t o i n t e r e s t e d persons of pleadings f i l e d i n formal
probate proceedings. S i n c e t h e M P r e q u i r e s p a r t i e s who
UC
oppose t h e p r o b a t e o f a w i l l t o s t a t e t h e i r o b j e c t i o n s i n
t h e form of p l e a d i n g s , s e c t i o n 72-3-308, MCA, w i l l c o n t e s t s
would be p l e a d i n g s and a l l i n t e r e s t e d p e r s o n s would have t o
be g i v e n n o t i c e t h e y had been f i l e d . The S h r i n e r s r e c e i v e d
no n o t i c e of t h e w i l l c o n t e s t h e r e .
The n o t i c e r e q u i r e d on t h e e n t r y of an o r d e r i n f o r m a l
p r o b a t e p r o c e e d i n g s must a l s o be c o n s i d e r e d . his d o e s n o t
f a l l under t h e c o n t r o l o f a s p e c i f i c p r o v i s i o n of t h e MUPC.
To d e t e r m i n e t h e n o t i c e r e q u i r e d a t t h i s s t a g e of t h e pro-
c e e d i n g s , r e f e r e n c e must b e made t o t h e Montana R u l e s o f
c i v i l Procedure. The M P p r o v i d e s f o r t h i s s t e p i n s i t u a -
UC
t i o n s n o t s p e c i f i c a l l y c o v e r e d by t h e MUPC. S e c t i o n 72-1-
207, MCA. The r u l e s r e q u i r e t h e c l e r k o f c o u r t t o s e r v e
n o t i c e o f e n t r y o f a n o r d e r upon e a c h p a r t y t o a n a c t i o n who
i s n o t i n d e f a u l t f o r f a i l u r e t o appear. R u l e 7 7 ( d ) , M.R.Civ.P.
To f a l l u n d e r R u l e 7 7 ( d ) , a named d e v i s e e must s a t i s f y
two c r i t e r i a . The d e v i s e e must b e a p a r t y u n d e r t h e meaning
o f t h e r u l e and t h e d e v i s e e must n o t be i n d e f a u l t f o r
f a i l u r e t o appear. Regarding p a r t i e s t o a p r o b a t e pro-
ceeding, t h e M P d e f i n e s " i n t e r e s t e d persons" a s including
UC
". . . h e i r s , d e v i s e e s , c h i l d r e n , s p o u s e s , c r e d i t o r s , bene-
f i c i a r i e s , and a n y o t h e r s h a v i n g a p r o p e r t y r i g h t i n o r
claim a g a i n s t a t r u s t e s t a t e o r t h e e s t a t e of a decedent,
ward, o r p r o t e c t e d p e r s o n which may b e a f f e c t e d by t h e
proceedings." S e c t i o n 72-1-103(21), MCA ( e m p h a s i s a d d e d ) .
I n s e c t i o n 72-3-305(2), MCA, the M P requires notice of the
UC
i n i t i a t i o n o f formal p r o b a t e proceedings t o be given t o
p a r t i e s i n c l u d i n g named d e v i s e e s . These two s e c t i o n s o f t h e
M P i n d i c a t e t h e l e g i s l a t u r e i n t e n d e d named d e v i s e e s t o b e
UC
p a r t i e s t o f o r m a l p r o b a t e p r o c e e d i n g s a n d , t h e r e f o r e , re-
c e i v e n o t i c e under Rule 7 7 ( d ) . Case l a w from o t h e r j u r i s -
dictions further substantiates t h i s point. The ~ a l i f o r n i a
C o u r t o f A p p e a l s h e l d named b e n e f i c i a r i e s i n a t e s t a m e n t a r y
t r u s t t o be i n d i s p e n s i b l e p a r t i e s t o t h e l i t i g a t i o n i n I n R e
t h e E s t a t e o f Reed ( 1 9 6 8 ) , 259 Cal.App.2d 1 4 , 66 ~ a l . ~ p t r .
1 9 3 , 198-99. On t h e second p o i n t , a l t h o u g h t h e ~ h r i n e r s i d
d
n o t make a n a p p e a r a n c e i n t h e m a t t e r , no d e f a u l t was re-
quested o r entered. Thus, named d e v i s e e s i n w i l l s who a r e
n o t i n d e f a u l t f o r f a i l u r e t o appear a r e e n t i t l e d t o n o t i c e
of t h e e n t r y of an o r d e r i n formal probate proceedings. he
Shriners stand i n t h a t position i n t h i s case. They s h o u l d
have been g i v e n n o t i c e o f t h e e n t r y o f t h e o r d e r by t h e
c l e r k of court.
Under t h e MUPC, the Shriners w e r e e n t i t l e d t o notice a t
a l l s t a g e s of t h e formal probate proceedings. They d i d n o t
r e c e i v e n o t i c e of t h e w i l l c o n t e s t o r t h e e n t r y of t h e o r d e r
p a r t i a l l y admitting t h e w i l l t o probate. The M P and t h e
UC
Montana R u l e s o f C i v i l P r o c e d u r e d i c t a t e t h e c o n s e q u e n c e s o f
f a i l u r e t o provide t h e required notice. The M P s t a t e s
UC
where n o t i c e i s r e q u i r e d , i n t e r e s t e d p e r s o n s may b e bound by
o r d e r s where n o t i c e i n c o n f o r m i t y w i t h M P p r o v i s i o n s was
UC
given. S e c t i o n 72-3-111(2), MCA. The n e g a t i v e i n f e r e n c e o f
t h a t p r o v i s i o n would b e t h a t o r d e r s i s s u e d w i t h o u t n o t i c e
a r e n o t b i n d i n g o n t h e p a r t i e s t h a t do n o t r e c e i v e n o t i c e .
Under t h a t p r o v i s i o n , t h e o r d e r e n t e r e d i n t h i s c a s e would
have no b i n d i n g e f f e c t on t h e S h r i n e r s .
The e f f e c t o f l a c k o f n o t i c e o f e n t r y o f t h e o r d e r o f
t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t i s c o v e r e d by c a s e law i n t e r p r e t i n g t h e
Montana R u l e s o f C i v i l P r o c e d u r e . Rule 7 7 ( d ) r e q u i r e s t h e
c l e r k of c o u r t t o send n o t i c e of o r d e r s e n t e r e d i n c a s e s t o
p a r t i e s t o an a c t i o n n o t i n d e f a u l t f o r f a i l u r e t o appear.
I f t h e c l e r k f a i l s t o send t h e n o t i c e , t h e t i m e f o r a p a r t y
t o appeal an o r d e r does n o t begin t o run. P i e r c e Packing
Co. v . The D i s t r i c t C o u r t ( 1 9 7 8 ) , Mon t . , 579 P.2d
760, 761-62, 35 St.Rep. 656, 658-59; Haywood v . S e d i l l o
( 1 9 7 5 ) , 167 Mont. 1 0 1 , 1 0 4 , 535 P.2d 1014. his r u l e ap-
p l i e s r e g a r d l e s s of a c t u a l n o t i c e of t h e e n t r y of t h e o r d e r
by t h e p a r t y s e e k i n g t o a p p e a l t h e o r d e r . P i e r c e , 579 ~ . 2 d
a t 761. Here, t h e r e c o r d does n o t d i s c l o s e any n o t i c e
h a v i n g been s e n t t o t h e S h r i n e r s by t h e c l e r k a t a n y t i m e .
Under P i e r c e , t h e t i m e f o r a p p e a l i n g t h e o r d e r of t h e is-
t r i c t C o u r t h a s n o t y e t begun t o r u n . This i s important i n
formal probate proceedings because t h e M P allows t h e
UC
~ i s t r i c C o u r t t o modify o r v a c a t e o r d e r s i n t h e p r o c e e d i n g s
t
w i t h i n t h e time allowed f o r appeal. S e c t i o n 72-3-318, MCA.
S i n c e t h e t i m e f o r a p p e a l h a s n o t y e t begun t o r u n i n t h i s
matter, n e i t h e r h a s t h e t i m e t o r e q u e s t t h e c o u r t t o modify
o r vacate t h e order entered here. The S h r i n e r s c a n s t i l l
r e q u e s t t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t t o modify o r v a c a t e t h e o r d e r t h e
c o u r t e n t e r e d on t h e b a s i s o f t h e i s s u e s r a i s e d by t h e
Shriners.
The above a n a l y s i s shows a p p e l l a n t was n o t g i v e n p r o p e r
n o t i c e o f t h e c o n t e n t t o C h a r l e s Holmes' w i l l o r t h e e n t r y
of t h e o r d e r voiding two-thirds of t h e d e v i s e t o t h e S h r i n e r s .
The e f f e c t o f t h e i m p r o p e r n o t i c e i s t h a t t h e o r d e r i s s u e d
by t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t d o e s n o t b i n d a p p e l l a n t and t h e t i m e
f o r a p p e l l a n t t o p e t i t i o n t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t t o modify o r
vacate the order has not elapsed. W e t h e r e f o r e remand t h e
c a s e t o t h e D i s t r i c t Court t o c o n s i d e r any p e t i t i o n appel-
l a n t m i g h t make t o modify o r v a c a t e t h e o r d e r e n t e r e d by t h e
D i s t r i c t Court.
Having d e t e r m i n e d t h e case must b e r e t u r n e d t o t h e D i s -
t r i c t C o u r t f o r f u r t h e r p r o c e e d i n g s , w e w i l l now c o n s i d e r
t h e v a l i d i t y o f t h e Mortmain S t a t u t e f o r t h e g u i d a n c e o f t h e
D i s t r i c t C o u r t i n r e c o n s i d e r i n g t h e matter. Appellant bases
i t s c h a l l e n g e s t o t h e s t a t u t e on c o n s t i t u t i o n a l g r o u n d s a n d
a l s o a r g u e t h e Mortmain S t a t u t e c o n f l i c t s w i t h p r o v i s i o n s o f
t h e Montana Uniform P r o b a t e Code, t h u s b e i n g i m p l i e d l y
r e p e a l e d by t h e code. A d d r e s s i n g t h e i s s u e o f i m p l i e d re-
p e a l o f t h e Mortmain S t a t u t e by c o n f l i c t i n g p r o v i s i o n s i n
t h e MUPC, w e f i n d t h a t no case l a w e x i s t s c o n c e r n i n g t h e e f -
f e c t o f a d o p t i o n o f t h e Uniform P r o b a t e Code on a ~ o r t m a i n
Statute. Only seven s t a t e s s t i l l have Mortmain S t a t u t e s .
52 N o t r e D a m e Lawyer 638, by Kymson F. D e s J a r d i n s , a t 639
(1977). Of t h e s e v e n s t a t e s w i t h Nortmain S t a t u t e s , o n l y
Montana, I d a h o and F l o r i d a have a d o p t e d t h e Uniform P r o b a t e
Code. N e i t h e r I d a h o n o r F l o r i d a have r u l e d on t h e v a l i d i t y
o f t h e Mortmain S t a t u t e under t h e Uniform Code, n o r d i d
t h o s e s t a t e s a d o p t a p r o v i s i o n i n t h e i r Uniform P r o b a t e Code
comparable t o s e c t i o n 72-1-106, MCA, which s t a t e s :
"Should any p r o v i s i o n o f t h i s code c o n f l i c t
w i t h any p r o v i s i o n s of o t h e r s t a t u t e s of t h e
s t a t e of Montana and r e l a t i n g t o p r o b a t e ,
guardianship, o r o t h e r subjects incorporated
i n t h i s code and s u c h o t h e r s t a t u t e o r s t a t -
u t e s w a s o r w e r e adopted p r i o r t o t h e enact-
ment of t h i s code, t h e p r o v i s i o n s of t h i s
code s h a l l be deemed t o be c o n t r o l l i n g . "
To d e t e r m i n e t h e v a l i d i t y of t h e Mortmain S t a t u t e under t h e
Uniform P r o b a t e Code, we must t u r n t o g e n e r a l r u l e s of s t a -
t u t o r y c o n s t r u c t i o n a i d e d by s e c t i o n 72-1-106, MCA.
I n S t a t e v. Langan ( 1 9 6 8 ) , 1 5 1 Mont. 558, 4 4 5 P.2d 565,
t h e C o u r t f a c e d t h e problem o f d e t e r m i n i n g t h e e f f e c t of
Uniform Drug Act on t h e g e n e r a l s t a t u t e s i n t h e C r i m i n a l
Code. The Uniform Drug Act p r o v i d e d a comprehensive scheme
f o r r e g u l a t i o n of t h e p r e p a r a t i o n , p o s s e s s i o n and s a l e o f
n a r c o t i c drugs. Under t h e s e f a c t s , t h e C o u r t h e l d t h e
l e g i s l a t u r e i n t e n d e d t o c o v e r t h e whole f i e l d of n a r c o t i c s
r e g u l a t i o n under t h e Uniform Act. Where p r o v i s i o n s o f t h e
g e n e r a l laws c o u l d n o t be harmonized t o g i v e e f f e c t t o b o t h
t h e s p e c i f i c law i n t h e a r e a and g e n e r a l l e g i s l a t i o n passed
p r i o r t o t h e a d o p t i o n of t h e comprehensive l e g i s l a t i o n , t h e
c o n f l i c t i n g p r o v i s i o n s o f t h e e a r l i e r law w e r e r e p e a l e d .
Langan, 1 5 1 Mont. a t 564.
I n S t a t e v. H o l t ( 1 9 4 8 ) , 1 2 1 Mont. 459, 194 P . 2 d X m
t h e Court i n t e r p r e t e d t h e e f f e c t of S t a t e Liquor Control
A c t , a comprehensive p i e c e o f l e g i s l a t i o n e n a c t e d i n 1933 i n
a n t i c i p a t i o n of a "day o f j u b i l e e " following t h e r e p e a l o f
E i g h t e e n t h Amendment on s t a t e p r o h i b i t i o n l a w s n o t e x p r e s s l y
r e p e a l e d by t h e C o n t r o l A c t . I n doing so, t h e Court s t a t e d
t h a t w h i l e r e p e a l s by i m p l i c a t i o n a r e n o t f a v o r e d , where a n
i r r e c o n c i l a b l e c o n f l i c t e x i s t s between e a r l i e r and l a t e r
s t a t u t e s , t h e c o u r t s do n o t h e s i t a t e t o d e c l a r e t h e e a r l i e r
s t a t u t e r e p e a l e d by t h e l a t e r l e g i s l a t i v e a c t i o n . Halt, 1 2 1
Mont. a t 468. The C o u r t f u r t h e r s a i d :
" E s p e c i a l l y i s t h e r e p e a l of t h e p r i o r incon-
s i s t e n t A c t h e l d t o be t h e i n e v i t a b l e r e s u l t
where t h e l a t e r A c t i s a comprehensive A c t
' e s t a b l i s h i n g e l a b o r a t e i n c l u s i o n s and e x c l u -
s i o n s o f p e r s o n s , t h i n g s and r e l a t i o n s h i p s
ordinarily associated with the subject.'
S u t h e r l a n d on S t a t u t o r y C o n s t r u c t i o n , p a r a -
g r a p h 2018." Halt, 1 2 1 Mont. a t 467-68.
S e e a l s o , S t a t e e x r e l . Marlenee v . D i s t r i c t C o u r t ( 1 9 7 9 ) ,
- Mont. , 592 P.2d 1 5 3 , 36 St.Rep. 457.
Given t h e s e r u l e s o f c o n s t r u c t i o n and t h e i r s p e c i f i c
i m p l e m e n t a t i o n u n d e r Montana c a s e l a w , t h e Mortmain S t a t u t e
must b e d e c l a r e d i m p l i e d l y r e p e a l e d by t h e a d o p t i o n o f t h e
Montana Uniform P r o b a t e Code i f t h e s t a t u t e c o n f l i c t s w i t h
t h e Uniform Code i n s u c h a manner a s t o b e ". . . w h o l l y
i n c o n s i s t e n t , i n c o m p a t i b l e , and n o t c a p a b l e o f b e i n g r e c o n -
c i l e d " w i t h t h e code. S t a t e e x rel. J e n k i n s v. C a r i s c h
Theatres Inc. (1977), Mont . , 564 P.2d 1 3 1 6 , 1 3 1 9 ,
34 St.Rep. 481.
The Mortmain S t a t u t e a l l o w s o n l y o n e - t h i r d o f a t e s t a -
t o r ' s e s t a t e t o p a s s t o a c h a r i t y under a w i l l executed
w i t h i n t h i r t y days of t h e t e s t a t o r ' s death. S e c t i o n 72-11-
334, MCA. When implemented, t h e s t a t u t e r e q u i r e s a s much as
two-thirds of a t e s t a t o r ' s e s t a t e t o pass contrary t o t h e
t e s t a t o r ' s i n t e n t a s expressed i n a w i l l . The Montana
Uniform P r o b a t e Code c l e a r l y r e q u i r e s t h e i n t e n t o f t h e
t e s t a t o r t o c o n t r o l t h e passing of h i s property. The Code
states: "The i n t e n t i o n o f a t e s t a t o r a s e x p r e s s e d i n h i s
w i l l c o n t r o l s t h e l e g a l e f f e c t of h i s d i s p o s i t i o n s . . ."
S e c t i o n 72-2-501, MCA. S e c t i o n 72-1-102, NCA, provides:
" ( 1 ) T h i s code s h a l l be l i b e r a l l y c o n s t r u e d
and a p p l i e d t o promote i t s u n d e r l y i n g p u r p o s e s
and p o l i c i e s .
" ( 2 ) The u n d e r l y i n g p u r p o s e s and p o l i c i e s of
t h i s code a r e t o :
" ( b ) d i s c o v e r and make e f f e c t i v e t h e i n t e n t o f
a decedent i n d i s t r i b u t i o n of h i s property;"
These s t a t u t e s o b v i o u s l y c o n f l i c t . The Uniform P r o b a t e
Code mandates i m p l e m e n t a t i o n o f t h e t e s t a t o r ' s i n t e n t . The
Mortmain S t a t u t e p r e v e n t s i m p l e m e n t a t i o n of t h e i n t e n t ex-
p r e s s e d i n a w i l l as t o a s much a s t w o - t h i r d s o f t h e t e s t a -
t o r ' s estate. J u d i c i a l construction cannot r e c o n c i l e t h e
statutes. I t i s i m p o s s i b l e t o d e v i s e a system w i t h i n t h e
t e r m s of t h e Mortmain S t a t u t e and t h e Code t o g i v e e f f e c t t o
t h e i n t e n t of t h e t e s t a t o r on t h e one hand and a l l o w two-
t h i r d s of a n e s t a t e t o p a s s c o n t r a r y t o t h e e x p r e s s language
o f t h e t e s t a t o r ' s w i l l on t h e o t h e r hand.
Applying t h e above r u l e s of s t a t u t o r y c o n s t r u c t i o n t o
t h e Mortmain S t a t u t e s u b s e q u e n t t o t h e p a s s a g e of t h e Uni-
form P r o b a t e Code, we f i n d Mortmain must f a l l . The l e g i s -
l a t u r e e n a c t e d t h e s t a t u t e i n 1893. Eighty-one y e a r s l a t e r
t h e l e g i s l a t u r e e n a c t e d a comprehensive p i e c e o f l e g i s l a t i o n
s p e c i f i c a l l y d e a l i n g w i t h t h e a r e a c o v e r e d by Mortmain. The
comprehensive l e g i s l a t i o n c o n f l i c t s w i t h t h e p r i o r e n a c t e d
statute. The l e g i s l a t u r e t h u s i m p l i e d l y r e p e a l e d t h e Mort-
main S t a t u t e and we now s o h o l d .
A t t h i s p o i n t w e deem i t w i s e t o i n j e c t a n o t e on t h e
scope of t h e holding i n t h i s case. W hold only t h a t the
e
p r o v i s i o n s i n t h e Montana Uniform P r o b a t e Code m a n d a t i n g t h e
implementation o f t h e t e s t a t o r ' s i n t e n t , impliedly r e p e a l a
p r i o r e n a c t e d and c o n f l i c t i n g s t a t u t e - - t h e Mortmain S t a t u t e .
By t h i s h o l d i n g , w e do n o t s u g g e s t t h i s same r e a s o n i n g
a p p l i e s t o s e c t i o n s w i t h i n t h e Code i t s e l f , s u c h a s t h e
safeguards provided f o r an omitted spouse o r p r e t e r m i t t e d
c h i l d r e n , t h a t may r e q u i r e p r o p e r t y t o p a s s i n a manner n o t
set out i n the t e s t a t o r ' s w i l l . The r u l e s o f c o n s t r u c t i o n
d e a l i n g w i t h t h e e f f e c t o f subsequent comprehensive l e g i s -
l a t i o n on e x i s t i n g l a w s a r e n o t t h e same a s t h o s e p e r t a i n i n g
t o c o n s t r u i n g s e p a r a t e s e c t i o n s of comprehensive l e g i s l a t i o n .
Further, t h e l e g i s l a t u r e c l e a r l y intended such provisions t o
be e x c e p t i o n s t o t h e r u l e t h a t t h e t e s t a t o r ' s i n t e n t c o n t r o l s
t h e disposition of h i s property. S e c t i o n 72-3-101, MCA.
Having found t h e Mortmain S t a t u t e i m p l i e d l y r e p e a l e d by
t h e a d o p t i o n o f t h e Uniform P r o b a t e Code, w e need n o t ad-
d r e s s t h e c o n s t i t u t i o n a l i s s u e s r a i s e d by a p p e l l a n t .
The c a s e i s remanded t o t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t w i t h d i r e c -
t i o n s t o allow a p p e l l a n t t o p e t i t i o n t h e D i s t r i c t Court t o
modify o r v a c a t e t h e o r d e r e n t e r e d by t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t .
I n c o n s i d e r i n g any such p e t i t i o n , t h e District Court i s
a d v i s e d t h a t t h e a d o p t i o n o f t h e Montana Uniform P r o b a t e
Code i m p l i e d l y r e p e a l s s e c t i o n 72-11-334, MCA, M o n t a n a ' s
Mortmain S t a t u t e .
n
W e concur: /" I
? &C h i e f a u s &i c e
A $&
t7J
f