Matter of Estate of Holmes

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