The Montana Supreme Court upholds the district court’s ruling that the mother of a deceased minor forfeited her right to inherit her child’s estate because she refused to support the child. In Re the Estate of M.A.C., deceased minor (Mont. No. DA 24-0230, February 4, 2025).
In March 2020, 11-year-old M.A.C. was killed in a car accident. Her 15-year-old brother, Mythias Cole, was severely injured and their adult half-sister, Samara Yanny, was killed. At the time of the accident, M.A.C. and Mythias had been living with Ms. Yanny for about six months.
Lisa Cole is the natural mother of M.A.C. and Mythias, as well as of Ms. Yanny and her four adult siblings. Mythias and M.A.C.’s father died in 2017.
The insurance company that insured the vehicle that M.A.C. was in sought to convey a policy-limits settlement of $100,000 to her estate. Discovering that no estate had been opened, the insurance company’s attorney, Shawn Cosgrove, attempted to contact Ms. Cole by phone and mail to inform her of the funds and the need to open a probate case. Ms. Cole did not respond.
In June 2020, Mr. Cosgrove tracked down Ms. Cole and talked with her about the policy funds and the need for a probate case. He gave her his business card, but she never contacted him.
After determining that Ms. Cole was not interested in being involved, Mr. Cosgrove contacted the Gallatin County Public Administrator to seek appointment of a personal representative for M.A.C.’s estate and was referred to professional fiduciary Sunny Yocom.
In October 2020, Ms. Yocom filed an application for informal appointment of personal representative in intestacy. The next month, the district court ordered the opening of M.A.C.’s estate and appointed Ms. Yocom as the personal representative.
In December 2021, the estate petitioned the district court to preclude Ms. Cole from inheriting the insurance payout and instead distribute the funds to M.A.C.’s half-siblings and Mythias in accordance with intestate succession statutes. Over the following year, Ms. Cole filed motions opposing the estate’s petition and seeking to have Ms. Yocom removed as the personal representative. During this time, the estate amended the petition without Ms. Cole’s objection.
Ms. Cole did not appear for the district court hearing but was represented by her attorney. The district court admitted, without objection, an affidavit submitted by Mr. Cosgrove in lieu of live testimony. The district court heard testimony from family members and school personnel familiar with M.A.C. and the lack of a relationship she had with Ms. Cole.
The testimony described Ms. Cole’s refusal to provide basic necessities to M.A.C. and Mythias, such as a safe environment and medical care. The testimony also highlighted several years of housing instability and Ms. Cole’s issues with addiction.
At the time of their deaths, Ms. Yanny was pursuing legal guardianship of M.A.C. The district court admitted a letter from the Social Security Administration (SSA) approving Ms. Yanny’s application to replace Ms. Cole as the representative payee for Mythias and M.A.C. In another letter that the district court admitted, the SSA informed Ms. Yanny that Ms. Cole had misused funds intended for M.A.C.’s benefit.
In April 2024, the district court granted the petition to preclude Ms. Cole from inheriting M.A.C.’s estate and directed its distribution to M.A.C.’s half-siblings and Mythias. The district court also denied Ms. Cole’s motions to appear remotely and to remove Ms. Yocom as the personal representative.
Ms. Cole accepts the district court’s interpretation of the statute that precludes her from inheriting from her child if she has refused to support that child. She is, however, asserting that the admitted testimony and exhibits do not form sufficient proof that she refused to support her child.
The estate asserts that the SSA letters, Ms. Yanny’s guardianship affidavit, and testimony from M.A.C.’s siblings and others provide ample evidence of Ms. Cole’s refusal to support M.A.C.
The court finds that the district court correctly determined that Ms. Cole refused to support M.A.C. and also upholds the district court’s denial of Ms. Cole’s motion to appear remotely and her challenges to Ms. Yocom’s appointment as personal representative, finding her arguments have no merit.
Subscribe to the Knowledge Bank.
