- 25 -
against not only the estate of Georgia Hohensee and the Jakubeks
but also anyone else claiming an interest in the property.
Petitioner has failed to prove that Ms. Williams did not have the
incentive vigorously to defend her ownership of the Abagail
ranch.
Second, petitioner argues that petitioner has better
procedural opportunities in this Court than Ms. Williams had in
the State court. In the Williams declaration, she states:
During the trial of the consolidated Montana cases, the
court refused to admit important evidence which I
believe supported my ownership of the Abagail Ranch.
As I understood it, the reason for the refusal to admit
the supporting evidence was that my attorney in this
action had failed to produce that evidence during the
discovery stage of the cases because he thought it was
unnecessary.
In Cause No. 96-109, the State court found:
At trial, Gail produced an alleged agreement with
Theodore for the Abagail Ranch and Lot #3 dated in
August of 1995. The agreement for the 400 acres was
not listed on Gail’s list of exhibits in the Pretrial
Order nor was it identified by Gail in her answers to
the discovery requests. Gail marked the putative
agreement for the 400 acres as Def. Ex. 510 in DV 96-60
and it was refused, but another agreement for land in
the Subdivision had been admitted as Def. Ex. 510A. In
DV 96-109, Gail switched the exhibit labels on the
exhibits and attempted to introduce the 400 acre
agreement as Def. Ex. 510A. The 400 acre agreement was
again rejected. While the Court eventually admitted
the document on other grounds, the Court does not find
this late discovered 400 acres agreement to be a
credible or authentic document or one of which the
defendants in DV 96-109 had adequate notice.
Therefore, the Court considers it of no consequence.
We assume that the document referred to in the court’s
finding is the document petitioner refers to. The short answer
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