- 13 -
which she claimed reflected the transfer from Theodore,
including the tractor. * * * Yet, there was nothing
presented at trial to indicate that she paid anything
for the machinery. The transfer document submitted by
Gail consists of three pages, the final two being
prepared by Cyndi. Cyndi testified that the two final
pages had not been prepared until late September or
early October of 1995. This is supported by Def. Ex.
509C which is the third page of Def. Ex. 509B except
with a date of October 1995 at the bottom. Gail’s
claim that Def. Ex. 509B was created on or before
August 30, 1995 is inconsistent with the date on Def.
Ex. 509C and Cyndi’s testimony.
* * * * * * *
69. As for the unlawful possession of the truck
and machinery and equipment, Gail at first claimed the
personal property belonged to the Estate and then they
belonged to her in accordance with an assignment dated
August 30, 1995. * * * Theodore, however, still
considered the property his as late as September of
1995 because he gave Paul the back hoe to use as a
trade in, an item that Gail claims was transferred to
her in August. * * *
Among the conclusions of law reached by the State court were the
following:
3. The Livestock Agreement is a valid contract as
all essential elements to a contract are present,
namely, identifiable parties capable of contracting,
their consent, lawful object and consideration. �28-2-
102, MCA; Klawitter v. Dettmann, (1994), 268 Mont. 275,
280, 886 P.2d 416, 419.
4. As reflected in the Livestock Agreement, the
intent of the parties was to make it binding upon their
respective heirs, personal representatives and assigns.
Theodore’s Last Will and Testament also instructs his
personal representative to pay all debts. (Pl. Ex.1).
The Livestock Agreement is binding upon Gail as
Theodore’s personal representative. See Baker v.
Berger (1994), 265 Mont. 21, 28, 876 P.2d 940, 944.
* * * * * * *
Page: Previous 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011