Legal Opinion

Niemen v. Howell

Montana Supreme Court

Decided November 3, 1988No. 88-253PublishedCited by 7 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtJustice Harrison

This appeal comes from findings of fact, conclusions of law and order of the District Court of the Tenth Judicial District, Judith Basin County, Montana. After a bench trial, the District Court held certain payments made to the deceased by the respondents, evidenced by promissory notes and checks, were loans, not gifts, and were payable from the estate. We affirm.

Appellant Loy B. Howell is the personal representative of the estate of her late husband, Thomas H. Howell (Tom). The respondents, L.E. Niemen and E.J. Niemen, are the mother and the stepfather of Tom Howell. After Tom’s death in…

2Cases cited7 opinions

  1. State v. DanielsMontana Supreme Court · 1984
  2. West River Equipment Co. v. Holzworth Construction Co.Montana Supreme Court · 1959
  3. Detra v. BartolettiMontana Supreme Court · 1967
  4. State v. RomeroMontana Supreme Court · 1973
  5. Perez-Lizano v. AyersMontana Supreme Court · 1985

2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by7 opinions

  1. Kulstad v. ManiaciMontana Supreme Court · 2009
  2. Mowrer v. EddieMontana Supreme Court · 1999
  3. In Re Guardianship of MowrerMontana Supreme Court · 1999
  4. Mannix v. Butte Water CompanyMontana Supreme Court · 1993
  5. Carl Weissman & Sons, Inc. v. D & L Thomas Equipment Corp.Montana Supreme Court · 1998

2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API