- 24 -
(2) If the plaintiff shall desire to obtain a
complete adjudication of the title to the real estate
described in the complaint, he may name as defendants
all known persons who assert or who might assert any
claim * * * and may join as defendants all persons
unknown who might make any such claim by adding in the
caption of the complaint in such action the words “and
all other persons, unknown, claiming or who might claim
any right, title, estate, or interest in or lien or
encumbrance upon the real property described in the
complaint adverse to plaintiff’s ownership or any cloud
upon plaintiff’s title thereto, whether such claim or
possible claim be present or contingent.”
The caption contains language substantially identical to that set
forth in Mont. Code Ann. sec. 70-28-104(2) (1999). Moreover,
Mont. Code Ann. sec. 70-28-107 (1999), quoted supra, establishes
the jurisdiction of the trial court to make a complete
adjudication of the title to the Abagail ranch. We cannot escape
the conclusion that, by filing the complaint, Ms. Williams placed
at risk her interest in the Abagail ranch as against all parties,
known and unknown.
Certainly, the State court recognized that Cause No. 96-109
involved rights other than those asserted by the estate of
Georgia Hohensee and the Jakubeks. The State court found: “To
permit Gail to keep the ranch without having paid for it would
unjustly enrich her at the expense of Georgia, the Jakubeks, and
perhaps other creditors, including the IRS, who are looking to
the Estate to satisfy Theodore’s outstanding obligations, debts
and judgments.” Ms. Williams instigated Cause No. 96-109, and,
initially, she set the boundaries of the controversy, which
brought into question her ownership of the Abagail ranch, as
Page: Previous 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011