Estate Of Goick

909 P.2d 1165 (1996)

Purchase the Printed Copy at bsmsphd.com

Nature of the Case

To access this section all you need to do is click here and register.

Facts

Michael and P were married in 1981, and the marriage produced three children. In December 1990, Michael filed a petition for dissolution. A hearing was scheduled for April 25, 1991. At that hearing, Michael and P agreed to all issues except the division of household goods, which the parties were to settle within two weeks. The District Court Judge then had the parties present sufficient evidence to support a decree of divorce. The parties were unable to agree on the division of the household goods and, on December 25, 1991, W filed a motion to divide personal property of the marriage. P's understanding was that the marriage had been dissolved on April 25, 1991, by the District Court. On December 19, 1991, the District Court Judge wrote a memorandum to the attorneys informing them that it was his understanding the parties had refused to sign the settlement agreement negotiated at the April 25 hearing and that he intended to hold the parties to that agreement. Michael died on November 30, 1992. Two days after his death, W moved to dismiss the divorce proceeding for the reason that Michael had died. On December 3, 1992, an order was issued dismissing the divorce action. W then filed a petition for adjudication of intestacy, determination of heirs, and appointment of personal representative. P claimed she was the surviving spouse. Ds (Michael's mother, brother, and sister) filed an objection to the petition as P was the ex-wife. The court appointed a guardian ad litem for the children. P filed a motion for summary judgment. Subsequent to the summary judgment motion being decided, the attorneys reached an oral settlement agreement on the telephone. That agreement was never written or signed by the parties. D filed a motion to compel a settlement, claiming that a binding agreement had been reached in the telephone conference. P and the guardian ad litem objected, and the District Court denied the motion to compel settlement. The court eventually granted P's motion for summary judgment on the issue of her status as a surviving spouse, approving the distribution agreement, and appointing P as a supervised personal representative. Ds appealed.