Cashmore v. Cashmore, 2013 ND 150

Decedent Robert Cashmore died in 2002; Thain (personal representative) and Bourck are children from a prior marriage; Trudy is the widow with two children. Long-running estate litigation mostly resolved by July 2007.
March 2008: personal representative filed a final report showing $72,598.56 balance and proposed distributions; March 2, 2009 judgment approved the report with adjustments and ordered payment of $6,377.83 to Trudy within ten days.
April 2009: personal representative moved to approve an amended final report reducing assets and increasing fees so the estate showed a zero balance; the district court denied that motion and again ordered payment to Trudy $6,377.83.
This Court affirmed the denial of the amended accounting in In re Estate of Cashmore, 2010 ND 159, 787 N.W.2d 261, leaving the payment obligation intact.
September 2011: personal representative filed a verified statement to close the estate asserting no further assets; Trudy petitioned to show cause in March 2012 for failure to close and failure to pay the court-ordered $6,377.83. The district court found the personal representative in contempt, ordered payment plus interest and fees, and denied a Rule 60(b) motion to vacate.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (Thain)	Defendant's Argument (Trudy)	Held
Whether PR had adequate notice that contempt proceeding targeted nonpayment of $6,377.83	Order to show cause mentioned only failure to close estate, so no proper notice of contempt for nonpayment	Petition and hearing made clear nonpayment under the 2009 order was the issue	Court: Notice sufficient; PR not surprised and had opportunity to respond; finding affirmed
Whether estate was already closed, precluding contempt	Estate was closed by March 2009 judgment or by verified statement filed Sept 2011 under UPC §3-1003	Estate not closed because court-ordered payment remained unpaid; verified statement cannot mask known outstanding claim	Court: Estate not closed; PR cannot evade payment; verified statement ineffective to avoid known claim
Whether PR’s failure to pay was willful/contemptuous	PR lacked funds and therefore nonpayment was not willful or intentional	PR told court funds existed in 2009; failure to pay was intentional and without excuse	Court: Noncompliance was intentional, willful, and without excuse; contempt affirmed
Whether denial of Rule 60(b) relief was an abuse of discretion	PR sought vacatur of contempt order under Rule 60(b)	Trudy opposed; judgment and contempt appropriately entered	Court: PR provided no persuasive basis to reverse; denial affirmed

In re Estate of Cashmore, 787 N.W.2d 261 (N.D. 2010) (prior appeal affirming denial of amended accounting and confirming payment order)
Nuveen v. Nuveen, 820 N.W.2d 726 (N.D. 2012) (standards for contempt review and abuse-of-discretion)
Holkesvig v. Welte, 809 N.W.2d 323 (N.D. 2012) (notice and contempt procedure principles)
Sail v. Sall, 804 N.W.2d 378 (N.D. 2011) (contempt review is limited; district court discretion)
Prchal v. Prchal, 795 N.W.2d 693 (N.D. 2011) (district court discretion in contempt determinations)
Glasser v. Glasser, 724 N.W.2d 144 (N.D. 2006) (abuse-of-discretion standard for contempt review)
Larson v. Larson, 582 N.W.2d 657 (N.D. 1998) (motion to reopen appropriate remedy for post-trial changes in asset values)
Grinaker v. Grinaker, 553 N.W.2d 204 (N.D. 1996) (same principle on reopening to present new evidence)
Vincent v. Estate of Simard, 801 A.2d 996 (Me. 2002) (verified statement closing estate ineffective if known outstanding claims remain)
Geier v. Tjaden, 84 N.W.2d 582 (N.D. 1957) (effect of appellate affirmance leaves judgment binding)