Background
After Mary Jo Bradford died, her daughter Rhonda Purtle informally probated a 2024 will and was appointed personal representative. The will named Purtle as sole executor and gave her Bradford’s residence, but it referred to Bradford’s deceased husband as living and did not name Bradford’s sons, Robert and Kenneth Bates.
The Bateses challenged the will, alleging lack of testamentary capacity, undue influence, financial exploitation, and improper disinheritance. On the day they filed their counter-petition, the District Court revoked Purtle’s letters without a hearing. Later, again without a hearing, it appointed a special administrator and froze every financial account in which Bradford had held an interest at death, including accounts Purtle claimed passed to her outside probate.
The Court’s Holding
The Montana Supreme Court reversed and remanded. It held that the District Court abused its discretion by removing Purtle without the hearing and cause determination required by § 72-3-526, MCA. Allegations in a will contest, even if verified, did not establish that the will was invalid or permit removal before the required hearing.
The Court also held that appointment of a special administrator without a hearing was improper because the orders and record did not establish an emergency under § 72-3-701(2), MCA. The Bateses could seek interim protection while their will contest remained pending under § 72-3-304, MCA, but their standing to contest the will did not itself establish standing to seek removal for cause. Finally, the Court held that the blanket account freeze lacked an adequate statutory basis and sufficient justification for its scope and duration, even assuming narrower provisional relief might be available.
Key Takeaways
- A probate court may not remove a personal representative for cause without the notice and hearing required by § 72-3-526, MCA.
- A special administrator may be appointed without a hearing only when the record supports the statute’s emergency exception.
- Potential claims involving nonprobate assets do not justify an unexplained blanket freeze of all accounts in which the decedent held an interest.
Why It Matters
The decision distinguishes between preserving an estate during a will contest and deciding the merits of disputed testamentary and property rights. Courts may consider properly supported interim relief, but must use the statutory procedure governing the particular remedy and tailor any restraint to the property and interests actually at issue.
On remand, Purtle must be restored as personal representative subject to statutory restrictions during the pending formal proceeding, the account freeze must be lifted, and the District Court must set a schedule to resolve the unresolved claims.