Justia Trusts & Estates Opinion Summaries

Thain Cashmore, individually, as personal representative of the estate of Robert Cashmore, and as trustee of the Robert Cashmore Trust, and Bourck Cashmore, individually and as trustee of the Robert Cashmore Trust, appealed an order that held the personal representative in contempt of court and an order denying the personal representative's N.D.R.Civ.P. 60(b) motion to vacate the contempt order. In 2009, the personal representative moved to approve an "amended" final report and account and proposed distribution which differed significantly from the judgment approving the original final report entered the previous month. The amended final report purported to show estate assets had brought in less money than anticipated in the original final report. The amended final report also requested $2,502.13 in additional personal representative fees, $9,965.20 in additional attorney fees, and $8,000 in additional fees to close the estate. As a result, the amended final report showed the estate with a zero balance instead of the $72,598.56 listed in the original final report, and the estate therefore claimed it would be unable to pay Trudy Cashmore the $6,377.83 approved in the original final report. Undeterred by the Supreme Court's affirmance of the district court's final judgment ordering Trudy Cashmore be paid $6,377.83 within ten days, the personal representative did not pay her. Because the district court did not abuse its discretion in finding the personal representative in contempt or in denying the motion to vacate, the Supreme Court affirmed. View "Estate of Cashmore" on Justia Law

Nancy Finkle appealed an order and judgment quieting title to 1/2 of the mineral interests in certain real property in Mountrail County in Leslie D. Johnson, Carol Johnson, Merlyn H. Johnson, Thea Donna D. Johnson, Delores Albertson and their children. Finkle claimed she owned 1/4 of the mineral interests. The district court held Finkle did not have an interest in the minerals. Finding no error, the Supreme Court affirmed. View "Johnson v. Finkle" on Justia Law

Southeastern Shelter Corporation appealed a district court order that held daily monetary sanctions imposed on Alphild Herzig under 2006 contempt orders abated upon her death. The trial court held that only the $5,000 awarded for attorney's fees in its June 2006 order was to compensate Southeastern and survived Herzig's death and that none of the daily sanctions imposed in its July 2006 order were to compensate Southeastern and therefore did not survive Herzig's death. Because the Supreme Court concluded the district court answered the specific question the Court remanded, it affirmed the order in the underlying cases and directed the 2008 case be remanded for entry of judgment. View "Investors Title Ins. Co. v. Herzig" on Justia Law

Neil Bartelson appeals from a district court order denying his petition to remove Guardian and Protective Services ("GAPS") as the personal representative of the Estate of Ralph Bartelson, an order denying his motion to vacate the order denying his petition and an order awarding attorney's fees. Ralph Bartelson had four children--Jean Valer, Jane Haught, Bartelson and Diane Fischer. In 2008, the district court approved a settlement agreement appointing Valer as guardian and GAPS as conservator. Ralph Bartelson died August 23, 2008, and GAPS was appointed the personal representative of the estate. Bartelson and Fischer alleged Valer and Haught misappropriated Ralph Bartelson's funds. GAPS did not pursue a misappropriation claim against Valer and Haught. The district court ordered it did not have jurisdiction over claims of misappropriation occurring before the court's 2008 appointment of a guardian and conservator for Ralph Bartelson. Bartelson and Fischer appealed. The Supreme Court reversed the district court's decision, holding the court erred in determining it did not have jurisdiction over the misappropriation claims. The case was remanded for further proceedings and for the court to determine whether Bartelson and Fischer had standing to assert their misappropriation claims when they did not allege that GAPS breached its fiduciary duty by not filing a misappropriation claim against Valer and Haught. On remand, Bartelson filed a petition to be appointed as the successor personal representative. The district court ruled neither Bartelson nor Fischer's estate had standing to assert their misappropriation claims. The court denied a motion to reconsider. Bartelson then petitioned to remove GAPS as personal representative of Ralph Bartelson's estate, arguing GAPS breached its fiduciary duty by failing to pursue collection of assets belonging to the estate and failing to bring an action against Valer and Haught for misappropriation, but did not hold a hearing on that motion. Upon review, the Supreme Court concluded that the district court abused its discretion in denying Bartelson's petition for removal of GAPS as the personal representative without conducting a hearing. The case was remanded for a hearing on the petition. View "Estate of Bartelson" on Justia Law

William and Patricia Clairmont appealed a judgment interpreting two trusts they created for the benefit of their grandson, Matthew Larson, and dismissing the Clairmonts' petition to reform the trusts. The Clairmonts argued the district court erred in denying their petition to reform the trusts because there was clear and convincing evidence of a mistake of law that affected their intent and the terms of the trusts. Upon review, the Supreme Court concluded the court misapplied the law construing trusts involving a mistake of law and the correct application of the law to the court's findings required reformation of the trusts. The Court affirmed in part, reversed in part and remanded for reformation of the trusts. View "In re Matthew Larson Trust Agreement" on Justia Law

In the early morning hours of April 11, 2008, Jeremy Rustad and Heidi Hanna were killed in a plane crash in McLean County. Rustad was piloting his Cessna aircraft and Hanna was a passenger when the plane crashed. The National Transportation Safety Board determined the probable causes of the accident were due to pilot error and pilot impairment due to alcohol. The estate published a notice to creditors of Rustad for three successive weeks beginning May 22, 2008, informing them they had three months to file claims. On September 24, 2008, Olson, as "co-personal representative of the estate of Heidi Hanna, deceased, caretaker of [B.H.], a minor, and temporary guardian of [B.H.], a minor," filed a claim against the estate asserting the estate was indebted to Hanna's estate and to Hanna's children. The estate "disallowed" Olson's claim. In early 2009, Olson filed this wrongful death and survival action against the estate. The estate moved for summary judgment dismissing the action. The estate argued Olson's claims were barred because she did not serve the personal representative in that capacity and the failure to present her claims in the probate action made them res judicata. The estate also argued Olson could not show Hanna was injured before Rustad died, and therefore, both the wrongful death and survivor claims were barred under the nonclaim provisions of the Probate Code. The district court rejected the estate's arguments that service of process was insufficient and that the action was barred by res judicata. The court concluded Olson presented no evidence to show Hanna died before Rustad, and dismissed the wrongful death and survival actions because they were barred by the nonclaim provisions of the Probate Code. The district court further noted Rustad had an aircraft insurance policy and the nonclaim provisions did not prevent Olson from recovering to the extent of insurance coverage available for the accident. The court ruled the language in the insurance policy unambiguously limited coverage under the circumstances to $103,000, and a judgment was entered in favor of Olson for $103,000. The Estate appealed; the Supreme Court, after review of the trial court record, affirmed. View "Olson v. Estate of Rustad" on Justia Law

Petitioners Randall Dionne, Cynthia Larson, and James Goodness appealed a district court judgment dismissing their petition for formal probate of Ardis Dionne's will, and denying a N.D.R.Civ.P. 60(b) motion to vacate the dismissal of James Goodness's petition to void the deed of property to Respondent-Appellee (and personal representative of the estate) Norman Dionne. At the time of her death, Ardis Dionne owned a 1/4 interest in some land in Mountrail County. Norman Dionne was appointed the personal representative, and instituted an intestate probate proceeding. The will left all of Ardis Dionne's property, including the real estate, to her husband James Goodness. Norman Dionne and Cynthia Larson met with Goodness in to persuade him to transfer or sell the real estate to them. Goodness told them he did not want the real estate, and signed a deed that purported to transfer the estate's interest in the property to Norman Dionne for one dollar, and that "[a]fter paying administration expenses and creditor's claims, if any, all of the remaining assets of the estate (including the proceeds from the sale of the land) shall be distributed to James Goodness." But "James Goodness" was crossed but and "Norman for maintenance, 4/25/02" was handwritten in. Goodness and all of Ardis Dionne's children signed the deed. Subsequently, Norman Dionne, as personal representative of the estate, issued a deed to himself in his individual capacity. In 2008, Randall Dionne and Cynthia Larson filed a petition to void the deed Norman Dionne had issued to himself and to transfer the land back into the estate for distribution. Randall Dionne and Cynthia Larson claimed the parties did not intend all of the land to go to Norman Dionne when James Goodness signed the deed giving up his interest in the land. They claimed the land was supposed to be kept by the estate until Ardis Dionne's mother died, and then be distributed to all six children equally. The district court dismissed the petition on summary judgment, ruling the deed unambiguously transferred the property to Norman Dionne. Randall Dionne and Cynthia Larson appealed, and the Supreme Court reversed and remanded for a trial, ruling the deed was ambiguous and summary judgment was inappropriate. A bench trial was later held to determine the intent of the parties that signed the deed. The district court found the intent of the parties was that the entire property would go to Norman Dionne. A new petition was then filed seeking formal probate of Ardis Dionne's will. Finding the issue res judicata, the Supreme Court held that "[a]dmitting the will to probate [would have been] an exercise in futility. . . Here, if the will [was] valid, James Goodness [was] the sole beneficiary, and signed a valid distribution agreement transferring his whole interest in the property to Norman Dionne. If the [was] not valid, the property [would pass] by intestacy equally to all of Ardis Dionne's children, who also signed a valid distribution agreement transferring their whole interest in the property to Norman Dionne. There is no reason to admit the will to probate. The district court properly granted Norman Dionne's Rule 12(b)(vi) motion and dismissed the petition." View "Estate of Dionne" on Justia Law

The Dorothy J. Pierce Family Mineral Trust appealed a judgment that dismissed the Trust's claim against Richard and Brenda Jorgenson for reformation of two warranty deeds. Because the parties' claims to quiet title in the disputed mineral acres were not fully adjudicated and no N.D.R.Civ.P. 54(b) certification appeared in the record, the Supreme Court dismissed the appeal as premature. View "Dorothy J. Pierce Family Mineral Trust v. Jorgenson" on Justia Law

Petitioner-Appellant Donna Kraft, the personal representative for the estate of Emma Boehm, appeals a trial court's order recognizing Interested Party-Appellee Alicia Rae Ramos as a devisee under the estate of Emma Boehm. Alicia Rae Ramos was born to Kelly McCormick and William Boehm on August 15, 1979. McCormick and William Boehm lived together with Ramos for approximately one year. They did not marry, and their relationship eventually deteriorated to the point where it ended. In July 1983, McCormick married Bernard Schumacher. In November 1983, Schumacher adopted Ramos, and William Boehm's parental rights were terminated. After the termination of his parental rights, William Boehm ceased seeing or spending time with Ramos. When Ramos was fifteen, she and William Boehm were reintroduced and, through shared meals and time spent on his family's farm, became reacquainted with one another. When Ramos graduated from high school, William Boehm attended the ceremony. In February 1995, Emma Boehm, William Boehm's mother, executed a Last Will and Testament. In her will, Emma Boehm divided the residuary of her estate into seven shares, one for each of her six living children and one for the children of a deceased son. Emma Boehm died in 2010 but was predeceased by William Boehm who died in 2000. Following Emma Boehm's death, her Last Will and Testament was admitted to informal probate, and Ramos moved for determination of her status with respect to Emma Boehm's will. The trial court found William Boehm functioned as a parent to Ramos. Kraft argued the trial court erred as a matter of law by relying on laws governing intestate succession to interpret Emma Boehm's will. More specifically, Kraft argued the court erred when it concluded Ramos was included in "issue" under Emma Boehm's will and held Ramos was a devisee entitled to take from Emma Boehm's estate. Ramos argued the trial court correctly construed Emma Boehm's will. Upon review, the Supreme Court held that Ramos was a proper devisee under Emma Boehm's will and affirmed the trial court's May 17, 2011, order and its February 17, 2012, opinion on the motion to reconsider in which it concluded William Boehm functioned as a parent to Ramos. View "Estate of Boehm" on Justia Law

Defendant-Appellee Barbara McDermott appealed a district court's grant of partial summary judgment in favor of Plaintiff-Appellee Kevin Pifer when the court concluded that Defendant's mother Dorothy Bevan, validly gifted Plaintiff an option to purchase land. In 2001, Ms. Bevan executed a durable power of attorney in favor of Plaintiff who was a distant relative. Thereafter, Plaintiff assisted Bevan with managing her farmland and performing miscellaneous other tasks. Ms. Bevan granted Plaintiff the option to purchase that land in 2004. Ms. Bevan died in 2010, and Plaintiff recorded a notice of his intent to exercise the option. Defendant rejected the attached cashier's check, questioning Ms. Bevan's capacity to execute the purchase option agreement. Plaintiff subsequently sued for specific performance of the purchase option. The district court granted Plaintiff partial summary judgment, concluding the purchase option agreement was valid and enforceable. In its judgment, the district court stated, "This Judgment shall be final for appeal purposes, and there is no just reason for delay." Upon review, the Supreme Court concluded the district court inappropriately certified the partial summary judgment under the North Dakota Rules of Civil Procedure, and the court abused its discretion in directing an entry of final judgment. Accordingly, the Court dismissed Defendant's appeal and directed the district court to vacate its portion of the partial summary judgment certifying the judgment as final. View "Pifer v. McDermott" on Justia Law