## Facts

- Michael William Goick and Barbara Goick married in 1981 and had three minor children.
- In December 1990, Michael filed a petition to dissolve the marriage.
- At an April 25, 1991 hearing, the parties resolved most dissolution issues but left the division of household goods unresolved; the court received evidence sufficient to support a divorce decree.
- No written decree or judgment dissolving the marriage was entered before Michael died intestate in November 1992.
- Two days after Michael’s death, Barbara moved to dismiss the dissolution action, and the court dismissed it without a dissolution decree.
- Barbara petitioned for appointment as personal representative as Michael’s “surviving spouse” and entered into a distribution agreement with the children (through a guardian ad litem).
- Michael’s mother, brother, and sister objected, contending the dissolution proceedings and oral understandings effectively ended the marriage and barred Barbara’s spousal status; one objector asserted creditor status.
- The probate court granted summary judgment for Barbara, recognized her as surviving spouse for intestate succession, appointed her supervised personal representative, approved the distribution agreement, and denied appellants’ motion to compel an alleged settlement.

## Issues

1. Whether the decedent’s mother, brother, and sister had standing to appeal the probate rulings.
2. Whether a spouse remains a “surviving spouse” for intestate succession when a dissolution action was pending and the parties had oral understandings, but no written dissolution decree was entered before death.
3. Whether the probate court erred in appointing the decedent’s spouse as personal representative.
4. Whether the probate court erred in denying appellants’ motion to compel enforcement of an alleged settlement.
5. Whether the spouse was entitled to attorney’s fees and costs on appeal.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court of Montana affirmed.
- A creditor-appellant was an aggrieved party with standing to challenge the appointment of the personal representative, but appellants lacked standing to challenge or compel enforcement of agreements to which they were not parties.
- Because no dissolution decree was entered before death, Barbara remained the decedent’s legal spouse and qualified as the surviving spouse for intestate succession.
- As surviving spouse, Barbara had statutory priority for appointment as personal representative; the appointment was proper.
- The motion to compel settlement was correctly denied because appellants failed to show an enforceable settlement binding the estate as asserted and, in any event, could not compel enforcement of agreements to which they were not parties.
- Appellate attorney’s fees were denied.

## Legal Principles

- Marital status for intestate succession turns on entry of a court decree dissolving the marriage; a pending dissolution action and oral understandings do not terminate spousal status absent an entered decree.
- A dissolution judgment must be embodied in a court order; an oral agreement between spouses does not itself constitute a divorce decree.
- The surviving spouse of an intestate decedent has statutory priority for appointment as personal representative over other relatives.
- Standing on appeal requires an appellant to be an aggrieved party as to the ruling challenged; nonparties generally lack standing to enforce or attack agreements to which they are not parties.
- Attorney’s fees on appeal require a valid statutory or other legal basis; fees are not awarded where the asserted bases do not apply.

## Conclusion

Because no dissolution decree was entered before the decedent’s death, his wife remained his surviving spouse for intestate succession and retained priority to serve as personal representative; extended family members could not use pending-divorce events or nonparty settlement theories to defeat those rights, and no appellate fees were awarded.


In re Estate of Goick, 275 Mont. 13, 909 P.2d 1165 (Mont. 1996)