No. 80-53
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA
1980
IN THE MATTER OF THE ESTATE
OF HERMAN G. MERKEL,
Deceased.
a1 from: District Court of the Eighteenth Judicial District,
In and for the County of Gallatin.
Honorable Joseph Gary, Judge presiding.
Counsel of Record:
For Appellant:
Steven D. Nelson argued, Bozeman, Montana
For Respondent:
Moore, Rice, O'Connell and Refling, Bozeman, Montana
Perry J. Moore argued, Bozeman, Montana
--
Submitted: September 11, 1980
Decided: OCT 2 7 1980
rx, /,-
Filed? - ' f' 7 I!)&'.
Mr. C h i e f J u s t i c e F r a n k I. H a s w e l l d e l i v e r e d t h e O p i n i o n o f t h e
Court.
The p e r s o n a l r e p r e s e n t a t i v e o f t h e E s t a t e o f C e l i a J .
M e r k e l a p p e a l s f r o m an o r d e r e n t e r e d i n t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t ,
E i g h t e e n t h J u d i c i a l D i s t r i c t , d i s m i s s i n g a p e t i t i o n f o r a1 l o w a n c e
o f c l a i m s on b e h a l f o f t h e e s t a t e o f C e l i a J. Merkel. In his
ruling, t h e d i s t r i c t j u d g e d e n i e d t h e c l a i m s f o r t h e homestead
a1 l o w a n c e , exempt p r o p e r t y , and an e l e c t i v e s h a r e . We a f f i r m i n
p a r t and r e v e r s e i n p a r t .
The f a c t s g i v i n g r i s e t o t h i s d e c i s i o n a r e i m p o r t a n t , par-
t i c u l a r l y w i t h r e s p e c t t o t h e t i m e sequence i n v o l v e d . I n 1967,
Herman G. M e r k e l and C e l i a J. Merkel married, b o t h o f them o v e r
70 years o l d a t t h e time. I n O c t o b e r 1977, S t e r l i n g H u n t e r was
a p p o i n t e d g u a r d i a n o f C e l i a Merkel by a Montana c o u r t . Herman
M e r k e l d i e d i n December 1978, having executed a w i l l e a r l i e r
which l e f t nothing t o h i s wife Celia. On J u n e 4 , 1979, Celia
Merkel, through her guardian, f i l e d a c l a i m f o r exempt p r o p e r t y
and homestead a l l o w a n c e , and f i l e d a p e t i t i o n f o r a n e l e c t i v e
share. C e l i a d i e d 9 d a y s l a t e r on J u n e 1 3 , 1 9 7 9 .
On A u g u s t 6 , 1979, S t e r l i n g Hunter, t h e personal represen-
t a t i v e o f t h e e s t a t e o f C e l i a J. Merkel, filed a petition for
a l l o w a n c e o f t h e same c l a i m s on b e h a l f o f t h e e s t a t e o f C e l i a
Merkel . The p e r s o n a l r e p r e s e n t a t i v e o f Herman M e r k e l ' s e s t a t e
moved t o d i s m i s s t h e p e t i t i o n , asserting that Celia's failure to
survive extinguished her claims, and t h a t h e r e s t a t e h a d n o v a l i d
claims. The d i s t r i c t j u d g e g r a n t e d t h e m o t i o n , ruling that the
h o m e s t e a d a l l o w a n c e and e x e m p t p r o p e r t y w e r e l i f e e s t a t e s o n l y .
The d i s t r i c t j u d g e a l s o d e n i e d C e l i a M e r k e l ' s p e t i t i o n f o r an
e l e c t i v e s h a r e , b e c a u s e a c o u r t o r d e r had n o t been e n t e r e d i n
w h i c h a f i n d i n g was made t h a t t h e e l e c t i o n was n e c e s s a r y t o s u p -
p o r t C e l i a M e r k e l as a p r o t e c t e d p e r s o n .
The a p p e l l a n t b r i n g s t w o i s s u e s b e f o r e t h i s C o u r t :
( 1 ) Whether s e c t i o n 72-2-703, MCA, r e q u i r i n g a showing o f
need i n o r d e r f o r a p r o t e c t e d spouse t o c l a i m an e l e c t i v e s h a r e ,
i s v i o l a t i v e o f t h e equal p r o t e c t i o n clauses o f t h e U n i t e d S t a t e s
C o n s t i t u t i o n and t h e Montana C o n s t i t u t i o n ?
( 2 ) Whether s e c t i o n s 72-2-801 and 72-2-802, MCA, providing
f o r a h o m e s t e a d a l l o w a n c e and e x e m p t p r o p e r t y , contemplate l i f e
e s t a t e s o n l y o r r a t h e r e s t a t e s i n f e e f o r which a s u r v i v i n g
s p o u s e ' s e s t a t e can b r i n g c l a i m ?
A p p e l l a n t ' s f i r s t c o n t e n t i o n i s t h a t s e c t i o n 72-2-703 i s
unconstitutional. T h a t s t a t u t e d e s c r i b e s who may e x e r c i s e t h e
r i g h t of election:
" R i g h t o f e l e c t i o n p e r s o n a l t o s u r v i v i n g spouse.
T h e right o f e l e c t i o n o f t h e s u r v i v i n g s p o u s e
may be e x e r c i s e d o n l y b y h i m . I n the-case of a
p r o t e c t e d p e r s o n , t h e r i g h t o f e l e c t i o n may be
e x e r c i s e d o n l y by o r d e r o f t h e c o u r t i n which
p r o t e c t i v e p r o c e e d i n g s as t o h i s p r o p e r t y a r e
pending a f t e r f i n d i n g t h a t exercise i s necessary
t o provide adequate support f o r t h e p r o t e c t e d
person d u r i n g h i s probable l i f e expectancy."
As t h e s t a t u t e i n d i c a t e s , a c o m p e t e n t spouse i s n o t
r e s t r i c t e d i n a n y way i n m a k i n g t h e e l e c t i o n , but a protected
spouse has t o pass t h e h u r d l e o f showing need b e f o r e c l a i m i n g t h e
p o s s i b l e b e n e f i t s o f an e l e c t i o n . Clearly, t h e s t a t u t e s e t s up a
classification--a c l a s s i f i c a t i o n which a p p e l l a n t contends denies
equal p r o t e c t i o n t o p r o t e c t e d spouses.
T h e l e g i s l a t u r e i s empowered t o c l a s s i f y p e r s o n s f o r p u r -
poses o f l e g i s l a t i o n , S t a t e v. Craig (1976), 169 Mont. 150, 156,
5 4 5 P.2d 649, 653, and i n r e v i e w i n g a s t a t u t e , t h i s Court presu-
mes t h a t t h e s t a t u t e s t a t u t e i s c o n s t i t u t i o n a l . Great F a l l s
Nat. Bk. v. McCormick ( 1 9 6 8 ) , 152 Mont. 319, 3 2 3 , 4 4 8 P.2d 991,
993. A p p e l l a n t a d m i t s t h a t t h i s c l a s s i f i c a t i o n does n o t i n v o l v e
a "fundamental r i g h t " o r a "suspect class", which would r e q u i r e a
f i n d i n g by t h i s Court o f a compelling s t a t e i n t e r e s t i n order t o
uphold the class. S t a t e v. Jack (1975), 167 Mont. 456, 461, 539
P.2d 726, 729. Rather, t h i s C o u r t need o n l y d e t e r m i n e t h a t t h e
"'classification [is] reasonable, not a r b i t r a r y , and m u s t r e s t
u p o n some g r o u n d o f d i f f e r e n c e h a v i n g a f a i r and s u b s t a n t i a l
relation t o the object of the legislation, so t h a t a l l p e r s o n s
s i m i l a r l y c i r c u m s t a n c e d s h a l l be t r e a t e d a1 ik e . .. I nu S t a t e v.
Craig, supra, 169 Mont. a t 1 5 6 , 5 4 5 P.2d a t 653.
The a p p e l l a n t has t h e b u r d e n o f p r o v i n g t h a t t h e c l a s s i f i -
cation i s arbitrary, S t a t e v. Jack, supra, 167 Mont. a t 461, 539
P.2d a t 729, a b u r d e n w h i c h a p p e l l a n t has n o t s u s t a i n e d h e r e .
We n o t e a t t h e o u t s e t t h a t t h e S t a t e l e g i s l a t u r e s h a v e
t r a d i t i o n a l l y set apart t h e c l a s s which i s i n v o l v e d here, dele-
g a t i n g t h e care o f incompetent persons t o t h e State. The
C o l o r a d o S u p r e m e C o u r t s t a t e d i n t h e e a r l y c a s e o f S h a p t e r v.
P i l l a r (1900), 28 C o l o . 209, 6 3 P. 302, 304, "It f a l l s t o t h e
S t a t e t o t a k e c a r e o f t h o s e who, b y reason o f mental incapacity,
cannot t a k e care o f themselves."
T h i s t r a d i t i o n o f d e l e g a t i n g care o f incompetent persons
t o t h e S t a t e was t h e b a s i s o f a r e c e n t C o l o r a d o S u p r e m e C o u r t
d e c i s i o n w h i c h u p h e l d 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 C o l o r a d o code
s e c t i o n which c o r r e s p o n d s t o s e c t i o n 72-2-703, MCA. See Sweeney
v. Summers ( 1 9 7 7 ) , 194 Colo. 1 4 9 , 5 7 1 P.2d 1067. That court
n o t e d t h a t t h e e n t i r e s t a t u t o r y scheme p e r t a i n i n g t o i n c o m p e t e n t
p e r s o n s has p l a c e d t h e i r c a r e u l t i m a t e l y w i t h t h e S t a t e .
Sweeney, s u p r a , 5 7 1 P.2d a t 1069. See s e c t i o n s 7 2 - 5 - 4 0 1 e t s e q . ,
MCA. Additionally, p r e - U n i f o r m P r o b a t e Code l a w i n m o s t s t a t e s
gave t o a c o u r t o f competent j u r i s d i c t i o n t h e r e s p o n s i b i l i t y f o r
m a k i n g t h e d e c i s i o n o f w h e t h e r o r n o t t h e i n c o m p e t e n t spouse
should e l e c t against the decedent's w i l l , 8 0 Am J u r 2 d W i l l s
591614-1615; Annot., 3 ALR3d 6 , 93, a d e c i s i o n w h i c h was b a s e d
p r i m a r i l y on t h e n e e d s o f t h e i n c o m p e t e n t s p o u s e .
The p r i m a r y p u r p o s e o f t h e e l e c t i v e s h a r e s t a t u t e s i s t o
i n s u r e t h a t t h e s u r v i v i n g s p o u s e ' s needs a r e met, and t h a t t h e
spouse i s not l e f t penniless. Annot., 3 ALR3d 6 , 93. Presumably,
i n making t h e d e c i s i o n whether t o e l e c t o r not, t h e competent
s p o u s e w o u l d c o n s i d e r many f a c t o r s , w i t h n e e d b e i ng t h e m o s t
persuasive. Because o f t h e s t a t u t e i n q u e s t i o n , the court i s
r e q u i r e d t o make t h e e l e c t i o n d e c i s i o n f o r t h e i n c o m p e t e n t s o l e l y
o n t h e b a s i s o f need. S e c t i o n 72-2-703, MCA.
T h i s s t a t u t e c l e a r l y d e p r i v e s t h e i n c o m p e t e n t spouse o f a
choice, and f u r t h e r d e p r i v e s t h e i n c o m p e t e n t o f any e x c e s s p r o -
p e r t y t o pass on t o h e i r s , t o invest, o r t o use f o r
unnecessaries. However, p r o v i d i n g funds f o r these purposes i s
n o t t h e p r i m a r y a i m o f t h e s t a t u t e and i s m e r e l y an i n c i d e n t a l
benefit, a v a i l a b l e o n l y i f t h e d e c e d e n t ' s e s t a t e h a p p e n s t o be
l a r g e e n o u g h t o a1 l o w t h e s e e x t r a s .
By b e i n g s u b j e c t t o a p r o t e c t i v e o r d e r , the incompetent
h a s a l r e a d y b e e n d e p r i v e d o f t h e r i g h t t o make c h o i c e s i n r e g a r d
t o property. Additionally, t h e c o u r t has b e f o r e i t , b y v i r t u e o f
t h e p r o t e c t i v e proceedings, a1 1 o f t h e i n f o r m a t i o n n e c e s s a r y t o
d e t e r m i n e what i s i n t h e b e s t i n t e r e s t s o f t h e p r o t e c t e d spouse.
T h e s t a t u t e i n s u r e s t h a t t h e s p o u s e w i l l be a d e q u a t e l y c a r e d f o r ,
thus f u l f i l l i n g t h e u l t i m a t e purpose o f t h e s t a t u t e , while
d e n y i n g t h e spouse o n l y t h e d i s c r e t i o n a r y income.
We f i n d t h i s s t a t u t e t o be r e a s o n a b l e and n o t a r b i t r a r y
when c o n s i d e r e d i n l i g h t o f t h e t r a d i t i o n a l role of the court
w i t h r e s p e c t t o i n c o m p e t e n t p e r s o n s and when c o n s i d e r e d i n l i g h t
o f t h e purpose o f t h e s t a t u t e . The d i s t r i c t j u d g e a c t e d p r o p e r l y
i n d e n y i n g t h e p e t i t i o n f o r an e l e c t i v e s h a r e .
The second i s s u e w h i c h a p p e l l a n t b r i n g s b e f o r e t h i s C o u r t
i n v o l v e s a d e t e r m i n a t i o n o f t h e n a t u r e o f t h e i n t e r e s t created by
t h e homestead a l l o w a n c e and exempt p r o p e r t y s t a t u t e s . Those s t a -
tutes provide i n part:
"Homestead a l l o w a n c e . (1) A s u r v i v i n g spouse o f
a d e c e d e n t who was d o m i c i l e d i n t h i s s t a t e i s
e n t i t l e d t o a homestead a l l o w a n c e o f $20,000.
...
" ( 2 ) T h e h o m e s t e a d a1 l o w a n c e i s e x e m p t f r o m and
has p r i o r i t y over a l l c l a i m s a g a i n s t t h e e s t a t e .
" ( 3 ) Homestead a l l o w a n c e i s i n a d d i t i o n t o any
s h a r e p a s s i n g t o t h e s u r v i v i n g spouse o r m i n o r
o r dependent c h i l d by t h e w i l l o f t h e decedent
unless otherwise provided, by i n t e s t a t e
s u c c e s s i o n , o r b y way o f e l e c t i v e s h a r e . "
S e c t i o n 7 2 - 2 - 8 0 1 , MCA.
"Exempt p r o p e r t y . ( 1 ) I n a d d i t i o n t o t h e
homestead a l l o w a n c e , t h e s u r v i v i n g spouse o f a
d e c e d e n t who was d o m i c i l e d i n t h i s s t a t e i s
e n t i t l e d from the e s t a t e t o value not exceeing
$3,500. .. S e c t i o n 7 2 - 2 - 8 0 2 , MCA.
N e i t h e r o f t h e s t a t u t e s i n d i c a t e s what t y p e o f i n t e r e s t i s
created, i.e., whether i t i s a f e e i n t e r e s t i n t h e s u r v i v i n g
spouse, o r a l i f e e s t a t e o n l y which i s extinguished by t h e
spouse's death. Cel i a Merkel a t t e m p t e d t o c l a i m t h e s e b e n e f i t s
as a s u r v i v i n g spouse, b u t she d i e d b e f o r e r e c e i v i n g them.
Appellant contends t h a t C e l i a Merkel's e s t a t e i s e n t i t l e d t o
t h e s e b e n e f i t s b e c a u s e s h e was a s u r v i v i n g s p o u s e a t t h e t i m e s h e
a t t e m p t e d t o c l a i m them.
The c o u r t s o f o t h e r s t a t e s w h i c h have e n a c t e d t h e U n i f o r m
P r o b a t e Code (UPC) h a v e n o t c o n s i d e r e d t h i s q u e s t i o n , n o r do t h e
C o m m i s s i o n comments s p e c i f i c a l l y a d d r e s s t h i s i s s u e . Pre-code
l a w i n M o n t a n a i n d i c a t e s t h a t t h e h o m e s t e a d was a l i f e e s t a t e
only. The p u r p o s e o f t h e h o m e s t e a d was t o p r e s e r v e t h e f e e
i n t e r e s t f o r t h e h e i r s o f t h e decedent, while setting aside a
l i f e estate, safe from creditors, f o r t h e s p o u s e and f a m i l y o f
t h e decedent. K e r l e e v. Smith (1912), 46 Mont. 19, 22, 1 2 4 P.
777; 40 Am J u r 2 d , Homestead, 94. The e a r l y cases, however, were
b a s e d on a M o n t a n a s t a t u t e w h i c h s p e c i f i c a l l y m a n d a t e d t h a t t h e
h o m e s t e a d was a l i f e e s t a t e , a s t a t u t e t h a t was r e p e a l e d w i t h t h e
adoption o f t h e UPC:
" ... I f t h e p r o p e r t y s e t a p a r t be a
homestead, s e l e c t e d f r o m t h e s e p a r a t e p r o p e r t y
o f t h e deceased, t h e c o u r t o r j u d g e can o n l y s e t
i t a ~ a r tf o r a l i m i t e d ~ e r i o d . t o be d e s i s n a t e d
i n t h e order, which s h a i l be
h u s b a n d -- f e , and t h e
or wi title
al i f e estate t o
v e s t s i n the-
h e i r s o f t h e deceased. sub.iect t o such o r d e r . "
S e c t i o n 9 1 - 2 4 0 5 , R.C.M. 1947. (Emphasis added.)
I n d e t e r m i n i n g t h a t t h e t w o new i n t e r e s t s c r e a t e d b y t h e
UPC w e r e i n t e n d e d t o be l i f e e s t a t e s , t h e d i s t r i c t judge r e l i e d
o n t h i s t r a d i t i o n a l v i e w o f t h e homestead, and o n a 1 9 6 0 M i s s o u r i
case, i n t e r p r e t i n g t h e M i s s o u r i Homestead A l l o w a n c e S t a t u t e ( n o t
UPC). See S c h u b e l v. B o n a c k e r (Mo. 1 9 6 0 ) , 3 3 1 S.W.2d 552. The
M i s s o u r i c o u r t d i s c u s s e d t h e o r i g i n s o f t h e homestead, noting
t h a t n e i t h e r t h e f o r m e r homestead n o r dower s u r v i v e d t h e d e a t h o f
t h e s u r v i v i n g spouse. The o b j e c t o f t h e homestead t o p r o t e c t t h e
f a m i l y w o u l d n o t "be s e r v e d b y t h e payment o f t h e homestead
a l l o w a n c e t o t h e e s t a t e o f a s u r v i v i n g spouse." Schubel, 331
S.W.2d a t 554, supra.
T h i s Court agrees w i t h the d i s t r i c t judge t h a t t h e primary
p u r p o s e o f t h e homestead a l l o w a n c e and exempt p r o p e r t y i s t o p r o -
t e c t t h e f a m i l y o f t h e decedent. However, we f i n d t h a t s e c t i o n s
72-2-801 and 72-2-802, MCA, g i v i n g these r i g h t s t o a surviving
spouse, c o n t e m p l a t e an i n t e r e s t w h i c h d o e s n o t t e r m i n a t e a t t h e
s u r v i v i n g spouse's death, so l o n g a s t h e s p o u s e s u r v i v e s t h e
decedent f o r t h e r e q u i r e d 120 hours, s e c t i o n 72-2-205, MCA.
A p p e l l a n t argues t h a t t h e 120-hour p r o v i s i o n i n i t s e l f
e s t a b l i s h e s a f e e i n t e r e s t i n a s u r v i v i n g spouse, and t h a t b y
s u r v i v i n g Herman M e r k e l f o r n e a r l y s i x months, Celia Merkel's
e s t a t e was e n t i t l e d t o t h e s e b e n e f i t s . S e c t i o n 72-2-205, MCA,
provides i n part:
" R e a u i r e m e n t -- s u r v i v e d e c e d e n t b v o n e
hundred twenty hours.
that heir --
Any p e r s o n who f a l l s t o
s u r v i v e t h e d e c e d e n t b y 1 2 0 h o u r s i s deemed t o
have predeceased t h e decedent f o r purposes o f
h o m e s t e a d a1 1 o w a n c e , e x e m p t p r o p e r t y , and
i n t e s t a t e s u c c e s s i o n , and t h e d e c e d e n t ' s h e i r s
are determined accordingly . . ."
C e l i a M e r k e l c l e a r l y q u a l i f i e s as a s u r v i v i n g s p o u s e u n d e r
t h i s s t a t u t e , b u t t h i s s t a t u t e does n o t d e f i n e t h e n a t u r e o f t h e
i n t e r e s t created i n the survivor, as t o w h e t h e r i t i s t e r m i n a t e d
upon t h e s u r v i v o r ' s death.
A l t h o u g h t h e h o m e s t e a d a1 l o w a n c e a n d e x e m p t p r o p e r t y c o n -
t i n u e t h e t r a d i t i o n o f making s t a t u t o r y r i g h t s a v a i l a b l e t o a
s u r v i v i n g spouse, t h e Montana l e g i s l a t u r e chose n o t t o i d e n t i f y
e i t h e r o f t h e s e i n t e r e s t s as l i f e e s t a t e s . S i n c e t h i s was e x p l i -
c i t i n t h e language o f s e c t i o n 91-2405, R.C.M. 1947, the former
homestead p r o v i s i o n , we assume t h a t t h e l e g i s l a t u r e p u r p o s e l y
o m i t t e d t h e " l i f e e s t a t e " l i m i t a t i o n and we w i l l n o t i m p l y i t .
S e e C. Sands, Sutherland Statutory Construction, 545.12 ( 4 t h ed.
1972). I n so c o n s t r u i n g t h e s t a t u t e , we r e l y on t h e r u l e o f s t a -
t u t o r y c o n s t r u c t i o n which provides:
" [ W l h e n a s t a t u t e i s r e v i s e d , some p a r t b e i n g
o m i t t e d , t h e o m i t t e d p a r t s a r e n o t r e a d i l y t o be
s u p p l i e d by c o n s t r u c t i o n , b u t are o r d i n a r i l y t o
b e c o n s t r u e d as a n n u l l e d . " S t a t e v. R i c h a r d s o n
( 1 9 5 3 ) , 1 7 4 Kan. 3 8 2 , 2 5 6 P.2d 1 3 5 , 1 3 9 .
T h e new s t a t u t e s a p p e a r c l e a r o n t h e i r f a c e . The r e s p o n -
d e n t has n o t b r o u g h t b e f o r e t h e C o u r t s u f f i c i e n t e v i d e n c e t o
o v e r c o m e t h e p r e s u m p t i o n t h a t i n p a s s i n g new l e g i s l a t i o n , the
l e g i s l a t u r e i n t e n d e d t o make a c h a n g e i n e x i s t i n g l a w . Mont.
D e p t . o f Rev. v. Am. Smelting & R e f i n i n g (1977), 173 Mont. 316,
325, 5 6 7 P.2d 901, 906.
The a p p e l l a n t r a i s e s o t h e r a r g u m e n t s w h i c h i n d i c a t e t o
t h i s C o u r t t h a t t h e d r a f t e r s o f t h e UPC d i d n o t i n t e n d t o l i m i t
these interests t o l i f e estates. The p r e s e n t homestead a l l o w a n c e
i s no l o n g e r a n i n t e r e s t j u s t i n l a n d , b u t i s an a l l o w a n c e w h i c h
may be s a t i s f i e d i n a n y t y p e o f p r o p e r t y . Terming these
i n t e r e s t s l i f e e s t a t e s w o u l d a p p e a r t o u n d e r c u t one o f t h e
e x p r e s s e d p u r p o s e s o f t h e UPC, that i s "to simplify ... the
1 aw c o n c e r n i n g t h e a f f a i r s o f d e c e d e n t s . " Sect i o n 72-1-102, MCA.
C o u r t i n v o l v e m e n t c o u l d d r a g on f o r y e a r s i n o r d e r t o i n s u r e t h e
t r a n s f e r o f t h e p r o p e r t y t o t h e remaindermen, and t h e c o u r t s
c o u l d be c a l l e d u p o n t o h e a r s u i t s f o r w a s t e a g a i n s t t h e l i f e
tenant. Too, with the p o s s i b i l i t y of satisfying the statutory
a l l o w a n c e i n money o r p e r s o n a l property, t h e c o u r t s w o u l d be i n a
p o s i t i o n o f h a v i n g t o d e t e r m i n e t h e use w h i c h a l i f e t e n a n t c o u l d
make o f t h e p r o p e r t y . See 5 1 Am J u r 2 d , L i f e Tenants, 5934-36.
One o t h e r p o i n t m e r i t s a t t e n t i o n . The p r o v i s i o n i n t h e
U n i f o r m P r o b a t e Code p r o v i d i n g f o r a F a m i l y a1 l o w a n c e s p e c i f i -
c a l l y s t a t e s t h a t " t h e d e a t h o f any p e r s o n e n t i t l e d t o f a m i l y
a 1 l o w a n c e t e r m i n a t e s h i s r i g h t t o a1 l o w a n c e s n o t y e t p a i d . "
S e c t i o n 72-2-803, MCA. The comments t o t h a t s e c t i o n p r o v i d e t h a t
" . . . the a1 l o w a n c e p r o v i d e d b y t h i s s e c t i o n d o e s n o t q u a l i f y
f o r t h e m a r i t a l d e d u c t i o n u n d e r t h e F e d e r a l E s t a t e Tax A c t
because t h e i n t e r e s t i s terminable." This i s the only statute i n
t h e " F a m i l y P r o t e c t i o n " s e c t i o n o f t h e UPC w i t h s u c h a p r o v i s i o n .
T h i s o m i s s i o n i m p l i e s t h a t t h e h o m e s t e a d a l l o w a n c e and e x e m p t
p r o p e r t y were meant t o q u a l i f y f o r the marital deduction. I f so,
t h e i n t e r e s t s c r e a t e d c a n n o t be t e r m i n a b l e i n t e r e s t s . See s e c -
t i o n 2056, I.R.C. (1954).
I n 1979 t h e l e g i s l a t u r e o f Nebraska added a p r o v i s i o n t o
i t s v e r s i o n o f t h e UPC i n o r d e r t o a s s u r e t h a t t h e h o m e s t e a d
a l l o w a n c e a n d e x e m p t p r o p e r t y w o u l d qua1 i f y f o r t h e m a r i t a l
deduction. See 9 3 0 - 2 3 2 5 , R.S.N. 1943, r e i s s u e o f 1979, which
provides i n part that
"[tlhe homestead a l l o w a n c e , t h e exempt p r o p e r t y
. . . shall
t h e date of
v e s t i n t h e s u r v i v i n g s p o u s e as o f
d e c e d e n t ' s d e a t h , as a v e s t e d i n d e -
f e a s i b l e r i g h t o f p r o p e r t y , s h a l l s u r v i v e as an
asset o f t h e s u r v i v i n g spouse's e s t a t e i f unpaid
o n t h e d e a t h o f s u c h s u r v i v i n g s p o u s e , and s h a l l
n o t t e r m i n a t e upon t h e d e a t h o r r e m a r r i a g e o f
t h e s u r v i v i n g spouse."
We f i n d t h a t s u c h a p r o v i s i o n i s n o t n e c e s s a r y . It
a p p e a r s c l e a r t o us f r o m t h e w o r d i n g o f t h e s t a t u t e i t s e l f , as
w e l l as f r o m t h e e x p r e s s e d p u r p o s e s o f t h e UPC, that the drafters
i n t e n d e d t h a t t h e s u r v i v i n g spouse s h o u l d t a k e a f e e i n t e r e s t i n
t h e homestead a l l o w a n c e and exempt p r o p e r t y . By s u r v i v i n g t h e
decedent f o r 120 hours, C e l i a M e r k e l and h e r e s t a t e became
e n t i t l e d t o those benefits absolutely. The d i s t r i c t j u d g e e r r e d
i n d e n y i n g t h o s e c l a i m s on b e h a l f o f C e l i a M e r k e l ' s e s t a t e .
T h i s case i s remanded t o t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t f o r e n t r y o f
judgment i n accordance w i t h t h i s opinion.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . -.
Chief Justice