No. 81-123
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA
1981
LOLA MAE LARANGO, et a1 . ,
Plaintiffs and Appellants,
-vs-
KENNETH LOVELY,
Defendant and Respondent.
Appeal from: District Court of the Sixth Judicial District,
In and for the County of Park, The Honorable
Jack D. Shanstrom, Judge presiding.
Counsel of Record:
For Appellant:
Robert J. Sewell,' Jr., Smith Law Firm,
Helena, Montana
For Respondent:
Joseph T. Swindlehurst; Huppert & Swindlehurst,
Livingston, Montana
Submitted on Briefs: September 17, 1981
Decided: December 9, 1981
Filed: . . - $ 1961
Clerk
Mr. j u s t i c e F r e d J. Weber d e l i v e r e d t h e Opinion of t h e
Court.
Appellants brought s u i t i n t h e S i x t h J u d i c i a l D i s t r i c t ,
Park County, Montana, a l l e g i n g t h a t t h e r e s p o n d e n t n e g l i g e n t l y
performed h i s d u t i e s a s e x e c u t o r of t h e e s t a t e of which t h e
a p p e l l a n t s are d i s t r i b u t e e s . Upon motion of t h e r e s p o n d e n t ,
t h e d i s t r i c t judge quashed t h e summons and d i s m i s s e d t h e
suit. W e reverse.
L o l a Mae Swandal d i e d t e s t a t e on November 8, 1974. Her
w i l l was a d m i t t e d t o p r o b a t e on November 26, 1974, and
Kenneth Lovely, r e s p o n d e n t h e r e i n , was named e x e c u t o r o f t h e
estate. V a r i o u s p o r t i o n s o f f o u r s e c t i o n s of l a n d were
included i n the e s t a t e . O i l leases involving t h e land i n
t h e s e f o u r s e c t i o n s had been e x e c u t e d p r i o r t o t h e d e a t h of
the testatrix. On J u l y 1 5 , 1975, t h e p r o p e r t y i n one of t h e
s e c t i o n s was s o l d by Lovely i n h i s c a p a c i t y a s e x e c u t o r . The
D i s t r i c t Court o r d e r confirming t h e s a l e s t a t e d t h a t t h e
p r o p e r t y was s o l d " w i t h t h e tenements, h e r e d i t a m e n t s and
appurtenances thereto." The p r o p e r t y i n a n o t h e r of t h e
s e c t i o n s was s o l d i n August, 1975. The c o u r t ' s o r d e r c o n f i r m i n g
t h a t s a l e i n c l u d e d a l e g a l d e s c r i p t i o n of t h e p r o p e r t y which
c o n t a i n e d t h e words "Excepting t h e r e f r o m One-half of t h e
e x i s t i n g o i l , g a s , hydrothermal and m i n e r a l r i g h t s . " These
words were i n k e d o u t , and t h e d e l e t i o n was i n i t i a l e d by t h e
judge. A s t a t e m e n t of a c c o u n t f o r f i r s t and f i n a l d i s t r i b u t i o n
w a s f i l e d by Lovely on August 28, 1975. The s c h e d u l e of
a s s e t s a t t a c h e d t o t h e s t a t e m e n t of a c c o u n t i n c l u d e d a
r e c i t a l o f o i l l e a s e s on and m i n e r a l r i g h t s r e s e r v e d from
t h e land i n a l l four sections. The D i s t r i c t C o u r t i s s u e d
i t s d e c r e e of s e t t l e m e n t of f i n a l a c c o u n t and d i s t r i b u t i o n
of e s t a t e on September 23, 1975. Each of t h e d i s t r i b u t e e s
r e c e i v e d a f r a c t i o n a l i n t e r e s t i n t h e o i l and m i n e r a l r i g h t s
t o the land i n a l l four sections. Lovely was d i s c h a r g e d a s
e x e c u t o r on March 2 , 1976.
On December 7, 1976, Lovely f i l e d a p e t i t i o n t o reopen
t h e e s t a t e and amend t h e d e c r e e of s e t t l e m e n t of f i n a l
distribution. Lovely a l l e g e d t h a t t h e d e c r e e i n a d v e r t e n t l y
d i s t r i b u t e d t h e m i n e r a l r i g h t s t o t h e two t r a c t s of l a n d
which had been s o l d . Hearing on this p e t i t i o n was had on
J u l y 1 9 , 1977. The d i s t r i b u t e e s of t h e Swandal e s t a t e
r e s i s t e d t h e p e t i t i o n , b u t on J u l y 29, 1977, t h e D i s t r i c t
C o u r t f i l e d a n amended d e c r e e of d i s t r i b u t i o n . The amended
d e c r e e r e f l e c t e d t h e conveyance of t h e m i n e r a l r i g h t s t o t h e
p u r c h a s e r s of t h e two t r a c t s of l a n d . The d i s t r i b u t e e s w e r e
s e n t n o t i c e of e n t r y of judgment and a p p e a l e d from t h e
judgment on September 1, 1977. The m a t t e r was f i n a l l y
s u b m i t t e d t o t h i s C o u r t on September 2 1 , 1978. On November
27, 1978, i n M a t t e r of E s t a t e of Swandal ( 1 9 7 8 ) , Mont.
, 587 P.2d 368, 35 St.Rep. 1716, t h i s C o u r t r e v e r s e d t h e
amendatory a c t i o n of t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t . W held t h a t the
e
m i n e r a l r i g h t s a t t e n d a n t t o t h e two t r a c t s conveyed by t h e
e x e c u t o r were n o t p a r t of t h e e s t a t e and n o t s u s c e p t i b l e t o
d i s t r i b u t i o n t o anyone. The c a s e was remanded t o t h e ~ i s t r i c t
C o u r t f o r amendment of t h e d e c r e e by a n o r d e r --- c
nunc p r o t u n
t o e x c e p t t h e m i n e r a l r i g h t s p r e v i o u s l y conveyed.
The d i s t r i b u t e e s had r e t a i n e d a t t o r n e y McKinley Anderson
t o r e p r e s e n t them i n t h e p r o c e e d i n g s o u t l i n e d above. ~uring
t h e pendency of t h e a p p e a l i n M a t t e r - -e E s t a t e - Swandal,
of t h of
a t t o r n e y Anderson p r e p a r e d a c i v i l c o m p l a i n t i n b e h a l f of
the distributees. The p l a i n t i f f s were Mabel L o u i s e E a s t o n ,
Dorothy E l l e n Larango, Lola Mae Larango, John Emery Swandal
( d e c e a s e d ) , Dorothy Hunt ( r e p r e s e n t i n g minor h e i r s S h a r i
Swandal and John S w a n d a l ) , and Susan Denise Swandal. Gordon
F r a n c i s Swandal, a l t h o u g h o m i t t e d from t h e c a p t i o n of t h e
c o m p l a i n t , was i n c l u d e d i n t h e body o f t h e c o m p l a i n t a s a n
h e i r of L o l a Mae Swandal. Kenneth Lovely was sued a s p e r s o n a l
r e p r e s e n t a t i v e of L o l a Mae Swandal ( d e c e a s e d ) . The compl-aint
a l l e g e d t h a t Lovely had been i n s t r u c t e d t h a t no o i l o r
m i n e r a l r i g h t s w e r e t o be conveyed when p r o p e r t y of t h e
e s t a t e was s o l d , b u t , d e s p i t e t h i s i n s t r u c t i o n , Lovely
n e g l i g e n t l y a l l o w e d t h e conveyance of o i l and m i n e r a l
i n t e r e s t s h e l d by t h e e s t a t e . The c o m p l a i n t was f i l e d on
May 8, 1978, and a summons i s s u e d t h a t same day t o t h e
p l a i n t i f f s ' attorney. T h a t a t t o r n e y , McKinley Anderson, was
r e p l a c e d by t h e p l a i n t i f f s ' p r e s e n t c o u n s e l , R o b e r t S e w e l l ,
i n O c t o b e r , 1978.
On May 1 7 , 1979, S e w e l l o b t a i n e d s e r v i c e of t h e summons
which had been i s s u e d on May 8, 1978. B e f o r e Sewell o b t a i n e d
s e r v i c e of t h i s summons, he a l t e r e d i t i n s e v e r a l r e s p e c t s .
S e w e l l ' s name w a s s u b s t i t u t e d f o r t h a t of t h e former a t t o r n e y ,
Anderson; John Emery Swandal ( d e c e a s e d ) was d e l e t e d a s a
p l a i n t i f f ; Dorothy E . Hunt, g u a r d i a n of S h a r i L . Swandal and
John P . Swandal, m i n o r s , was s u b s t i t u t e d f o r Dorothy Hunt,
r e p r e s e n t i n g minor h e i r s S h a r i Swandal and John Swandal;
Gordon Swandal was added a s a p l a i n t i f f . These changes w e r e
made w i t h o u t l e a v e o f c o u r t . On May 1 8 , 1979, a n amended
complaint w a s f i l e d . The amended c o m p l a i n t showed t h e same
changes i n p l a i n t i f f s and a t t o r n e y s a s t h e "amended" summons.
The amended c o m p l a i n t added a l l e g a t i o n s t h a t Lovely had
f a i l e d t o a c c o u n t f o r a g r a i n c r o p growing on one of t h e
t r a c t s which had been s o l d and had p a i d p e r s o n a l r e p r e s e n t a t i v e
f e e s and a t t o r n e y f e e s i n e x c e s s of t h e amount a l l o w e d by
statute . A 1 though t h e amended c o m p l a i n t named Kenneth
Lovely, p e r s o n a l l y , a s d e f e n d a n t , t h i s change was n o t made
on t h e a l t e r e d summons. The summons s t i l l l i s t e d t h e d e f e n d a n t
a s Kenneth Lovely, a s t h e p e r s o n a l r e p r e s e n t a t i v e of Lola
Mae Swandal ( d e c e a s e d ) .
On J u n e 6 , 1979, t h e d e f e n d a n t moved t o quash t h e
summons b e c a u s e i t had been m a t e r i a l l y a l t e r e d s i n c e t h e
d a t e of i s s u a n c e . Hearing on t h e motion was had on J u n e 29,
1979, b u t t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t d i d n o t i s s u e i t s o r d e r q u a s h i n g
t h e summons a s i s s u e d and a l t e r e d u n t i l December 11, 1979.
A t t o r n e y S e w e l l h a s h i s o f f i c e i n Lewis and C l a r k County,
and a copy of t h e o r d e r q u a s h i n g summons was n o t d e p o s i t e d
i n t h e m a i l t o be d e l i v e r e d t o him u n t i l F e b r u a r y 29, 1980.
The copy was d e l i v e r e d t o Sewell on March 3, 1980. Back on
December 11, 1979, S e w e l l had f i l e d a motion t o amend t h e
summons. On March 6 , 1980, Sewell m a i l e d a motion t o r e c o n s i d e r
t h e o r d e r q u a s h i n g summons t o t h e c l e r k of c o u r t ; t h i s
motion was f i l e d by t h e c l e r k on March 20, 1980. On J u n e
23, 1980, a n amended c o m p l a i n t was s e r v e d upon Lovely,
t o g e t h e r w i t h a new summons on t h a t c o m p l a i n t . Lovely
responded on J u l y 7, 1980, w i t h a motion t o d i s m i s s t h e
c o m p l a i n t on t h e ground t h a t t h e summons was n o t i s s u e d
w i t h i n one y e a r of May 8 , 1978, t h e d a t e upon which t h e
o r i g i n a l c o m p l a i n t was f i l e d . On J u l y 15, Sewell a g a i n moved
t h e c o u r t t o r e c o n s i d e r i t s o r d e r q u a s h i n g summons o r t o
a l l o w amendment. J u l y 1 5 was a l s o t h e d a t e f o r t h e h e a r i n g
on L o v e l y ' s motion t o d i s m i s s . On J a n u a r y 27, 1981, t h e
D i s t r i c t C o u r t i s s u e d i t s o r d e r g r a n t i n g L o v e l y ' s motion t o
dismiss. The p l a i n t i f f s a p p e a l e d .
A p p e l l a n t s have r a i s e d t h r e e i s s u e s i n t h i s a p p e a l .
However, a f t e r r e v i e w of a l l t h r e e i s s u e s , we f i n d t h a t t h e
c a s e c a n b e r e s o l v e d by a d d r e s s i n g t h e c e n t r a l q u e s t i o n : Did
t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t a b u s e i t s d i s c r e t i o n by r e f u s i n g t o
a l l o w amendment o f t h e summons?
The r e s p o n d e n t i s c o r r e c t i n a s s e r t i n g t h a t t h e power
t o i s s u e a summons l i e s e x c l u s i v e l y w i t h t h e c l e r k of c o u r t .
Rule 4 C ( 1 ) , M.R.Civ.P.; Kramer v . S c i e n t i f i c C o n t r o l Corp.
(D.C. Pa. 1 9 7 3 ) , 365 F.Supp. 780; 2 Moore's F e d e r a l P r a c t i c e
114.04 (2d ed. 1 9 8 1 ) . An a t t o r n e y h a s no power i n t h e m a t t e r .
The a t t o r n e y can o n l y r e q u e s t t h a t t h e summons be i s s u e d t o
him o r h e r , Rule 4 C ( 1 ) , M.R.Civ.P., o r move t h e c o u r t t o
have t h e summons amended. Rule 4 D ( 7 ) , M.R.Civ.P. The
a t t o r n e y i n t h i s m a t t e r was w i t h o u t a u t h o r i t y t o a l t e r t h e
summons w i t h o u t l e a v e of c o u r t . N e v e r t h e l e s s , once l e a v e
was r e q u e s t e d , t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t s h o u l d have a l l o w e d amendment.
The Montana R u l e s of C i v i l P r o c e d u r e a r e t o be c o n s t r u e d
t o secure the j u s t , speedy and i n e x p e n s i v e d e t e r m i n a t i o n o f
c a s e s , Rule 1, M.R.Civ.P., and t o f a c i l i t a t e t h e d e c i s i o n of
c a s e s on t h e i r m e r i t s . Rambur v. D i e h l Lumber Company
( 1 9 6 4 ) , 1 4 4 Mont. 84, 394 P.2d 745. This Court has s t a t e d
that ". . . i t i s t o be c o n s i d e r e d a s e r i o u s m a t t e r when a
p a r t y moves t o have a c a s e d i s p o s e d of on grounds o t h e r t h a n
the merits." Rambur, 1 4 4 Mont. a t 90, 394 P.2d a t 749. When
t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t quashed t h e May 8, 1978 summons on t h e
ground t h a t i t had been a l t e r e d w i t h o u t l e a v e of c o u r t ,
f a i l e d t o r u l e upon t h e motion t o r e c o n s i d e r i t s q u a s h i n g of
t h e summons, and f a i l e d t o r u l e upon t h e motion t o a l l o w
amendment of t h e summons, Rule 4 1 ( e ), Ir4.R.Civ.P. w a s brought
i n t o play. T h a t r u l e p r o h i b i t s t h e f u r t h e r p r o s e c u t i o n of
a n a c t i o n i f a summons h a s n o t been i s s u e d w i t h i n one y e a r
of commencement of t h e a c t i o n . Lovely invoked Rule 4 1 ( e ) i n
h i s motion t o d i s m i s s . The p a s s a g e of t i m e p r e c l u d e d t h e
e f f e c t i v e i s s u a n c e of a new summons, and t h e c a s e was d i s -
missed. So, a f t e r f o u r y e a r s of l i t i g a t i o n and two r e v i e w s
by t h i s C o u r t , t h e m e r i t s of t h i s c o n t r o v e r s y a r e y e t t o b e
considered.
The D i s t r i c t C o u r t h a s t h e power " [ a ] t any t i m e , i n i t s
d i s c r e t i o n , and upon such n o t i c e and t e r m s a s i t deems j u s t ,
... [ t o ] a l l o w any p r o c e s s o r proof of s e r v i c e t h e r e o f t o
be amended u n l e s s i t c l e a r l y a p p e a r s t h a t m a t e r i a l p r e j u d i c e
would r e s u l t t o t h e s u b s t a n t i a l r i g h t s of t h e p a r t y a g a i n s t
whom t h e p r o c e s s i s s u e d . " Rule 4 D ( 7 ) , M.R.Civ.P. The
r e c o r d l a c k s any i n d i c a t i o n t h a t m a t e r i a l p r e j u d i c e t o t h e
s u b s t a n t i a l r i g h t s of Kenneth Lovely would have r e s u l t e d
from a l l o w i n g a Rule 4D(7) amendment of t h e summons. One of
t h e f u n c t i o n s o f a summons i s t o g i v e n o t i c e . Amendment of
t h e May 8, 1978, summons t o r e f l e c t t h e minor changes c o n t a i n e d
i n t h e amended c o m p l a i n t o f May 1 8 , 1979, would have g i v e n
Lovely a somewhat more a c c u r a t e p i c t u r e of t h e a c t i o n b r o u g h t
a g a i n s t him. Amendment would have a i d e d Lovely; i t would
n o t have p r e j u d i c e d him. The D i s t r i c t C o u r t abused i t s
d i s c r e t i o n by n o t a l l o w i n g amendment. The o r d e r of d i s m i s s a l
i s reversed. The c a u s e i s remanded f o r amendment of t h e
summons and amendment of proof of s e r v i c e . I s s u a n c e and
s e r v i c e of t h e summons s h a l l r e l a t e back t o t h e o r i g i n a l
d a t e s of i s s u a n c e and s e r v i c e , t o i n s u r e t h a t t h i s c a s e i s
n o t d i s m i s s e d f o r f a i l u r e t o comply w i t h t h e t i m e r e q u i r e m e n t s
of Rule 4 1 ( e ) , M.R.Civ.P.
Reversed and remanded.
We Concur:
ChAef Justice \