Bell State Bank & Trust v. Oakland
2015 ND 188
| N.D. | 2015Background
- John T. Gassmann executed a will on December 6, 2011, and died February 2012; the will (with a revocable living trust) excluded or redirected certain farmland inheritance.
- Margaret Oakland, Gassmann’s only biological child, objected to probate alleging the will was produced by an insane delusion (poisoning conspiracy) that affected testamentary dispositions.
- Earlier (1993) divorce-related psychiatric evaluations diagnosed Gassmann with a delusional disorder; Bell State argued Gassmann later had a brain tumor removed and that residual distance from Oakland reflected disapproval of her life choices, not delusion.
- Bell State petitioned for probate and moved in limine to exclude broad categories of evidence about Gassmann’s past statements, post-will statements, military service, paternity doubts, trust amendments, and lifetime transfers; the court granted motions conditionally and allowed revisiting if experts relied on excluded material.
- Oakland proceeded largely pro se, presented expert testimony asserting the delusional disorder persisted to death, but failed to make many offers of proof at trial for evidence the court had precluded; a jury found Oakland failed to prove the will resulted from an insane delusion, and the district court denied her motion for a new trial.
Issues
| Issue | Oakland’s Argument | Bell State’s Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admissibility of remote (1990s) statements about poisoning conspiracy | Remote statements show long-running delusion relevant to testamentary intent | Remote statements irrelevant or unfairly prejudicial; court should limit under Rules 401/403 | Court conditionally excluded but admitted some 1990s evidence; Oakland failed to preserve complaint for excluded parts by not offering proof |
| Admissibility of post-will statements re: mental state (2012) | Post-will statements show delusion persisted when will executed | Post-will statements are irrelevant to testator’s state at signing unless tied to expert diagnosis | Court conditionally excluded; allowed such evidence if experts relied on it; Oakland made limited offer and failed to preserve other exclusions |
| Evidence of trust amendments and nonprobate transfers after will | Amendments and transfers show ultimate disposition and indecision related to delusion | Trust issues were litigated/untimely; changes irrelevant to the will on Dec 6, 2011 | Court barred inquiry into specific amendments/beneficiaries; Oakland acquiesced and failed to preserve the issue on appeal |
| Exclusion of other circumstantial evidence (military service, paternity doubts, witnesses’ testimony) | Such evidence bears on delusional belief and testamentary capacity | Irrelevant, prejudicial, or cumulative; properly limited under 401/403 and motions in limine | Court did not abuse discretion; many exclusions were provisional and Oakland largely failed to make offers of proof to preserve claims |
Key Cases Cited
- Matter of Estate of Aune, 478 N.W.2d 561 (N.D. 1991) (contestant bears burden to prove lack of testamentary capacity and insane delusion standard)
- Matter of Estate of Flaherty, 446 N.W.2d 760 (N.D. 1989) (definition and distinction of insane delusion from mere mistake or eccentric belief)
- Williston Farm Equip., Inc. v. Steiger Tractor, Inc., 504 N.W.2d 545 (N.D. 1993) (trial court discretion on relevancy and motions in limine; need for offers of proof)
- In re Rubey, 838 N.W.2d 446 (N.D. 2013) (preclusion via motion in limine does not remove offer-of-proof requirement to preserve review)
- Schwab v. Zajac, 823 N.W.2d 737 (N.D. 2012) (self-represented litigants are held to same procedural rules)
- Nesvig v. Nesvig, 712 N.W.2d 299 (N.D. 2006) (offers of proof required to review excluded evidence decisions)
- Rittenour v. Gibson, 656 N.W.2d 691 (N.D. 2003) (standard of review for denial of motion for new trial)