that non-NMDs may not take their shares in the form of permanent or long-term interests in real property. ¶43 As I envision this rule, it would operate as a starting point for the probate process, not as a basis for actual distribution. It would define those rights which vest at death. The probate court would then be free to arrive at an equitable distribution of estate assets, based upon the facts of each case, the relations between the heirs, the nature of the property contained in the estate, and any other pertinent considerations. ¶44 Such powers of equitable distribution are plainly within the power of the probate court. See Com. R. Prob. P. 22 (empowering probate court to make “such orders as are necessary to close the estate”); Estate of Kumler, 699 P.2d 1388, 1391-92 (<HOLDING>). This type of determination would be difficult
holding that a claim of quantum meruit was appropriate in a probate case because under section 103 principles of law and equity supplement the provisions of the utah uniform probate code unless displaced by particular provisions of the code holding that the common law rule that a guardian is in a fiduciary relationship to his ward was not abrogated by the adoption of the uniform probate code even though the code does not shoulder guardians with fiduciary responsibilities recognizing broad equitable power of probate court to act in best interests of persons in its jurisdiction holding that uniform probate code  3911 gives probate court power to sell any property which cannot be partitioned without prejudice to the owners and which cannot conveniently be allotted to any one party holding placement of commitment statute within probate code rather than within criminal code was evidence of intent to enact civil remedy