Albrecht v. Albrecht, 942 N.W.2d 875

Glen and Sharleen Albrecht were parties to divorce proceedings that included a summons and interim order with restraining provisions.
While the divorce was pending, Sharleen changed the beneficiary on a transfer-on-death (P.O.D.) investment account, removing Alan and naming Mark as the sole beneficiary.
Sharleen later liquidated the account; after her death proceeds were transferred to Mark.
Alan sued Mark (and Mark’s wife) alleging contempt of the divorce orders and unjust enrichment based on the beneficiary change and transfer.
The district court dismissed Alan’s complaint with prejudice, concluding Alan lacked standing and that contempt claims must be brought in the original divorce case.
The North Dakota Supreme Court affirmed, holding Alan had no vested interest in the account during Sharleen’s lifetime and was attempting to assert another party’s (Glen’s) rights.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Standing to sue separately for alleged violation of divorce restraining provisions	Alan contends he sustained injury from the beneficiary change and liquidation and may sue to remedy it	Mark contends Alan has no legal interest in the account during Sharleen’s life and cannot assert Glen’s rights	Alan lacks standing; beneficiaries have no right to sums on deposit during owner’s lifetime and Alan asserts third‑party (Glen’s) rights
Claim for unjust enrichment against Mark	Alan argues Mark was unjustly enriched by receiving proceeds traceable to the account	Mark argues no actionable enrichment because Alan had no vested interest and transfers postdate owner’s death	Dismissed for failure to state a claim—no plausible entitlement given Alan’s lack of vested interest
Contempt claim for violation of divorce orders	Alan asks contempt relief for alleged breaches of the divorce summons/interim order	Mark argues contempt must be prosecuted in the same case where the order issued (the divorce case)	Contempt claim dismissed because contempt must be brought in the original case
District court’s adoption of personal representative’s findings	Alan argues the court failed to exercise independent judgment by adopting those findings	Mark defends dismissal on jurisdictional/standing and merits grounds	Court’s dismissal affirmed on standing and related grounds; independent‑judgment claim unnecessary to resolve

In re Estate of Dionne, 827 N.W.2d 555 (N.D. 2013) (standard for reviewing Rule 12(b)(6) dismissal)
Whitecalfe v. N.D. Dep’t of Transp., 727 N.W.2d 779 (N.D. 2007) (two‑prong standing test requiring actual injury and assertion of one’s own legal rights)
McColl Farms, LLC v. Pflaum, 837 N.W.2d 359 (N.D. 2013) (party lacks standing to assert rights belonging to non‑appealing third parties)
In re J.D.F., 787 N.W.2d 738 (N.D. 2010) (standing requires plaintiff to have suffered injury and assert own rights)
Flatt v. Kantak, 687 N.W.2d 208 (N.D. 2004) (discussion of standing and limits on asserting third‑party rights)
In re Estate of Owens, 413 P.3d 255 (Colo. Ct. App. 2017) (recognizing circumstances where beneficiaries can sue over changed POD designations for undue influence/constructive fraud)
Crosby v. Luehrs, 669 N.W.2d 635 (Neb. 2003) (beneficiary standing in claims challenging altered payable‑on‑death designations)