In re Estate of Snyder

• Decision Date: 12 June 2007
• Docket Number: No. DA 06-0325.,DA 06-0325.
• Citation: 162 P.3d 87,337 Mont. 449,2007 MT 146
• Parties: In the Matter of the ESTATE OF Lucile B. SNYDER, Deceased.
• Court: Montana Supreme Court

162 P.3d 87

2007 MT 146

337 Mont. 449

In the Matter of the ESTATE OF Lucile B. SNYDER, Deceased.

No. DA 06-0325.

Supreme Court of Montana.

Submitted on Briefs May 9, 2007.

Decided June 12, 2007.

Rehearing Denied July 24, 2007.

For Appellant: Steven T. Potts, Thompson, Potts & Donovan, P.C., Great Falls, Montana.

For Respondent: Robert Emmons, Great Falls, Montana.

Justice BRIAN MORRIS delivered the Opinion of the Court.

¶ 1 Lois K. Snyder (Lois), heir to the Estate of Lucile B. Snyder, deceased, (the Estate) appeals from two orders of the Eighth Judicial District Court, Cascade County, resolving a dispute between Lois and her brother Neil E. Snyder (Neil) over their respective shares of Lucile's Estate.

¶ 2 We review the following issues on appeal:

¶ 3 Does Lois present an appealable issue pursuant to the Montana Rules of Appellate Procedure?

¶ 4 Did the District Court err when it ruled that the property still remaining in the Estate should be appraised and distributed based upon its current market value?

¶ 5 Did the District Court err when it ordered Lois to quitclaim her inherited interest in the Flathead County property back to the Estate?

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

¶ 6 Lucile B. Snyder (Lucile) died on November 18, 1992, devising her entire Estate to her two children, Neil and Lois. She nominated Neil as the personal representative for her Estate. The Estate included a controlling interest in the Snyder's family-owned drugstore, Snyder's, Inc. The Estate also contained a property known as 1227 Fifth Avenue North in Great Falls and 40 acres of undeveloped land in Flathead County.

¶ 7 Lucile's will provided, in relevant part, that she "devise[d] all the rest, residue and remainder of my property . . . to my two children, LOIS K. SNYDER and NEIL E. SNYDER, in equal shares, share and share alike." The will provided, however, that "[f]ifty-one percent (51%) of my stock in [Snyder's, Inc.] . . . shall be first apportioned and set aside to make up the share of my total estate which shall go to my son, NEIL E. SNYDER." The will explained that "it is [Lucile's] will and desire that [Neil] have said business, or control of the corporate business as the case may be, but without ultimately diminishing the equal distribution of my estate to my two children, whom I hold in equal regard."

¶ 8 Neil filed an application for informal probate and appointment of himself as personal representative on November 25, 1992. Neil, acting as the personal representative, proposed to distribute 51% of Lucile's stock in Snyder's, Inc. to himself and 49% of the stock to Lois. He assured Lois that she would be paid cash for the 2% of stock that he would receive in excess of her shares. Neil also proposed that the remainder of the Estate would be divided equally between them. Lois objected. Neil petitioned the District Court to interpret the will after he and Lois failed to agree to a distribution method.

¶ 9 The District Court adopted Neil's proposal and ordered that the "personal representative must distribute the corporate shares of the decedent 51 % to Neil and 49% to Lois." The court ordered that the "remaining assets must be divided equally between Neil and Lois, except that [Neil] must first distribute to Lois the difference in value between Neil's 51% and Lois'[s] 49% of those shares." Accordingly, Neil executed deeds of distribution to Neil and Lois as tenants in common for the Great Falls and Flathead County properties on March 16, 1998. The court entered a decree of distribution and order approving Neil's final accounting of the Estate on May 26, 1999. The decree noted that Lois would receive $4,960 in cash to equalize the stock distribution.

¶ 10 Lois successfully appealed the court's decree of distribution. In re Estate of Snyder, 2000 MT 113, 299 Mont. 421, 2 P.3d 238 (Snyder I). This Court determined that Lucile's expressed intent required that Neil take the entire interest in Snyder's, Inc. and that Lois receive estate assets of comparable value. Snyder I, ¶ 16.

¶ 11 On remand Lois and Neil engaged in extended litigation over the valuation of the Flathead County property and how it should be distributed in light of this Court's decision in Snyder I. Both parties agreed that Lois should receive some combination of the Flathead County and Great Falls properties, equal in value to Snyder's, Inc. The parties' mutual desire to gain a larger share of the increasingly valuable Flathead County property frustrated their efforts, however, to settle on which property should be distributed first and how that property should be valued.

¶ 12 Neil proposed that Lois should be compensated for her interest in Snyder's, Inc. with the Great Falls property. He suggested that she would be compensated with the Flathead County property only to the extent that the value of Snyder's, Inc. exceeded the value of the Great Falls property. Neil also proposed to value the Great Falls and Flathead County properties at their "current value." His method would ensure that he would receive approximately one-half of the Flathead County property as its value had appreciated to multiple times the value of the Snyder's, Inc. shares. Neil stated in 2001 that he believed the Flathead County property to be worth somewhere between $1,000,000 and $2,000,000. Neil estimated that Snyder's, Inc. was worth only around $160,000.

¶ 13 Lois proposed that she should receive a share of the Flathead County property equal in value to Snyder's, Inc, and that all property left in the Estate should be distributed according to its value at Lucile's time of death, as calculated for federal estate tax purposes. Lois's method would ensure that she would receive the entire Flathead County property, as its value at the time of Lucile's death was $160,000 and the value of Snyder's, Inc. was approximately $190,000.

¶ 14 The District Court rejected Lois's proposed distribution method and determined instead that the stock and property "shall be valued at current valuation." The court noted that the Great Falls property was no longer at issue as the property had been "sold by agreement of the parties for cash and notes." Lois appealed.

¶ 15 We dismissed Lois's appeal as "not ripe for appellate review" in our Order dated November 22, 2005. We noted that "it is clear from the Order that there remains for determination by the District Court the valuation of the stock and real property contained in the Estate, as well as the distribution of the property to Lois and her brother Neil. . . ."

¶ 16 Neil then moved the District Court to order Lois "to execute her quitclaim deed to the Estate of Lucile B. Snyder for the real property located in Flathead County." He argued that our decision in Snyder I had voided his 1998 distribution of the Flathead County property. Neil also requested a "scheduling conference regarding disclosure of expert values of the Flathead Lake property and a hearing date for final distribution of the estate."

¶ 17 The court ordered Lois to quitclaim her interest in the Flathead County property back to the Estate, noting that "Lois'[s] successful appeal [in Snyder I] upset the entire scheme of distribution" set forth in the court's January 25, 1998, order. The court pointed out that it "must have the flexibility to order distribution of [the Flathead County] property ... by partition, in kind distribution[,] or sale and distribution of proceeds" in order to probate the Estate pursuant to Snyder I. The court explained that "[i]t is highly unlikely that Lois will receive the exact interest in the Flathead property that presently stands in her name." The District Court directed the parties to exchange names and reports of experts in preparation for a valuation hearing to be held on June 14, 2006. Lois filed her notice of appeal on April 10, 2006, before the court could conduct the valuation hearing.

STANDARD OF REVIEW

¶ 18 The judicial interpretation and construction of a will presents a question of law. Snyder I, ¶ 8. We review a district court's conclusions of law to determine whether those conclusions are correct. In re Estate of Harms, 2006 MT 320, ¶ 12, 335 Mont. 66, ¶ 12, 149 P.3d 557, ¶ 12.

DISCUSSION

¶ 19 Does Lois present an appealable issue pursuant to the Montana Rules of Appellate Procedure?

¶ 20 Lois appeals two orders of the District Court: (1) the September 22, 2004, order determining that the remaining estate property should be distributed according to its current market value; and (2) the March 16, 2006, order compelling Lois to quitclaim her interest in the Flathead County property back to the Estate. Neil argues that Lois improperly bases her appeal on M.R.App. P. 1(b)(2) and (3).

¶ 21 Rules 1(b)(2) and (3) provide, respectively, that a party may appeal from an order "directing the delivery, transfer, or surrender of property," or an order "against or in favor of directing the partition, sale, or conveyance of real property ...." Neil argues, without authority, that M.R.App. P. 1(b)(2) and (3), are both inapplicable in light of the fact that Lois has no "legal claim" to the Flathead County property. He contends that this Court's opinion in Snyder I nullified the 1998 distribution by which Lois received her legal interest in the Flathead County property.

¶ 22 Lois responds that she possesses a valid deed for the Flathead County property and M.R.App. P. 1(b)(2) and (3) provide this Court with authority to hear her appeal. She points out that the plain language of these rules encompasses the court's order that Lois must "[quitclaim deed] back to the Estate the interest in the Flathead Lake property previously deeded to her." We agree. The court's order both directed "the delivery, transfer, or surrender of property," under M.R.App. P. 1(b)(2), and represented a ruling "against or in favor of directing the partition, sale, or conveyance of real property ...," under M.R.App. P. 1(b)(3).

¶ 23 We likewise held in Estate of Murphy,...