R. Drollinger v. 6th Jud. District Court

She has also since filed a creditor's claim of $474,518.96

against Stoneman's estate. Drollinger puts forth that the District Court is biased ^andraises^fiveissues^inher Petition. She requests an "indefinite stay vacating the scheduled September 16, 2026 hearing and halting the Special Master's forced real estate actions[.]" Drollinger's petition contends that; (1) the District Court committed gross

.abuse^ofdiscretion^andastructural due process violation by consolidating the probate

administration^withthe"distinct civil property claims"; (2) the District Court committed a reversible error of law by denying her

"Mandatory Motion for Substitution of Judge" pursuant to § 3-1-804, MCA, "by fabricating untimeliness"; (3) "the District Court

violated due process and engaged in 'judicial gaslighting' with its denial" of her motion for summary judgment; (4) the District Court's "rulings are structurally compromised by bias

under^theMontana^CodeofJudicial Conduct when material evidence establishes an active,

unrecorded political and electronic relationship between the presiding Judge and the [personal representative's] counsel"; and

(5) the public integrity of the judicial system requires an emergency intervention because the court is permitting "an insolvent officer of the court [to utilize] local benches to Drollinger includesliquidate residential deeds to satisfy personal federal

liabilities, several hundred pages of attachments, and several documents are duplicative. The Court is familiar with Drollinger's underlying disputes with the Decedent from prior litigation. See Stoneman v. Drollinger, 2000 ^MT274,302Mont.^{107,14P.3d12;} Stoneman v. Drollinger, 2003 MT 25, 314 Mont. 139, ^{64P.3d997;and}Stoneman^v. Drollinger, 2008 MT 448, 348 Mont. 17, 199 P.3d 232. Pursuant to M. R. App. P. 14(3), the Montana Supreme Court has "supervisory control over all other courts and may, on a case-by-case basis, supervise another court by way of a writ of supervisory control. Supervisory control is an extraordinary remedy, reserved for extraordinary circumstances." Stokes v. Mont. Thirteenth Judicial District Ct, 2011 MT 182, Tf 5, 361 Mont. 279, 259 P.3d 754. A petitioner ^mustdemonstrate^acase with purely legal questions and urgent or emergency factors making the normal appeal process inadequate, and the "other court is proceeding under a mistake of law, causing a gross injustice." M. R. App. P. 14(3)(a).

2

As detailed in the Supplemental Memorandum, Drollinger provides that she attempted to file for a stay in the District Court on the day of the hearing—September 16, 2026. As asserted, the Clerk of District Court initially refused to file that request per the Judge's instructions, but it was later filed on September ^16,2026. Given^thattheDistrict Court held its hearing, we do not find good cause to issue a stay pending further review of her writ. This Court may also summarily deny her stay for non-compliance with the Rules of Appellate Procedure. M. R. App. P. 22(4).

This Court has reviewed Drollinger's pleadings and

attachments. According^tothe register of actions, the underlying informal probate

matter commencedⁱⁿDecember 2021, yet further activity did not occur until two years later, as Drollinger states. The original presiding judge retired, and on June 1, 2026, the Honorable

Rebecca Swandal assumed jurisdiction over the matter. On July 2,2026, the District

Court issued^anOrder^onMotions addressing several pending motions and consolidating the probate and quiet title cases. In its Order on Motions, the District Court explained:

It is clear that the quiet title actions in Cause No.

DV-25-151^and DV-25-150 [quiet title cases] both resulted from the

transfer^ofrealproperty from the Estate of Mark Stoneman. It is also clear

that the Defendant [Ruth Drollinger] is a creditor in that probate, and is concerned

about transfers^of real property prior to receiving what is owed her from ^theEstate.^TheCourt has not done a thorough review of the Estate of Mark

Stoneman; however, on February 25, 2026, Plaintiff [Julie Wilcox] filed ^aMotion^toContinue^the final hearing in that Estate due to the pending quiet

title actions, stating^the Estate case cannot be resolved until the quiet title

actions^areresolved. However, the quiet title actions are borne from the activity in the Estate, and therefore, the Court believes it makes the most sense ^tohearallthree cases at the same time, and to make a global decision at that time regarding all three cases.

This Court recognizes that a district court may exercise ^itsdiscretionⁱⁿmanaging^thecases before it, but otherwise takes no position on the consolidation issue pending appropriate review. See Carol Hudson Revocable Tr. v. Freedom Pass

Partners, LLC, 2026 MT 212, (2026) (citing Jacobsen v. Allstate Ins. Co.,^P.3dH 48,

Mont.

3

2009 MT 248, ^ 17, 351 Mont. 464, 215 P.3d 649). Drollinger raises multiple questions of fact, which must be addressed by the District Court, and not by writ. Drollinger sought substitution of judge on August 12,

2026,^intheDistrict Court, which the District Court denied, reasoning the motion was untimely. The District Court noted that, upon a new judge's assumption of jurisdiction, "[t]he time period runs anew from the date of service of notice or other document

identifying the new district judge."

See § 3-1-804(8), MCA. The court explained that all parties received notice on July 2, 2026, with its Order on Motions, and reasoned that Drollinger's motion for substitution was well outside the thirty-day window. Drollinger

contends^shenever received^theOrder, but service by mail is presumed. Nothing in the petition serves to rebut the presumption, and we conclude Drollinger has not shown urgency or an emergency or that the District Court is proceeding under a mistake of law, causing a gross injustice, necessitating supervisory control.

Drollinger seeks a merits ruling on the application of § 72-2-814(2)(b), MCA, regarding the effect of the dissolution of marriage to Stoneman on the Quinn Creek Property ("a court order, or a contract relating to ^thedivision^ofthemarital estate^made between the divorced individuals . . ., the divorce

or annulment of a marriage severs the interests of the former spouses in property held by ^{thematthetimeofthe}divorce^or annulment as joint tenants with the right of survivorship ^andtransforms^theinterests^ofthe fonner spouses into tenancies in common"). However, the disposition of the property is now pending before the District Court as part of the consolidated proceeding, and we are not persuaded by the petition that, at this stage, the District Court is proceeding under a mistake of law necessitating the exercise of supervisory control. Drollinger has a remedy of appeal upon that final decision from the District Court and any other final decisions in

4

2. Droilinger's Emergency Motion for Temporary Stay ^isDENIED,^asmoot;

3. Drollinger's Motion for Judicial Notice is DENIED; ^and

4. this matter is CLOSED as of this Order's date. The Clerk is directed to provide a copy of this Order ^to:theHonorable Rebecca Swandal, District Court Judge; Cheyenne Adler, Clerk ^ofDistrict Court, under Cause^Nos. DP-21 -65, DV-25-150,^ai^DV 25-151; counsel of record; ^andRuthDrollinger personally.

DATED this day of September, 2026. Chief Justice

5