Dixon v. Dixon, 960 N.W.2d 764

Shirley A. Dixon created a revocable trust in 1972; her four children (including John and Billie Dixon) were remainder beneficiaries.
John sued in 2013 seeking an accounting, removal of Billie as trustee, supervised administration, repayment of allegedly unauthorized distributions, and attorney fees; Shirley died in 2015.
After an initial summary-judgment loss, this Court reversed and remanded; on remand the district court ordered supervised administration and directed final distribution and termination of the trust in a December 28, 2020 order.
John appealed the December 28, 2020 order (notice filed Feb 26, 2021); Billie moved to dismiss the appeal as moot and for lack of N.D.R.Civ.P. 54(b) certification.
The district court later stayed the December 28 order (staying distributions and trustee discharge), confirming administration was not complete.
The Supreme Court granted Billie’s motion, holding the appeal must be dismissed for lack of Rule 54(b) certification because the trust remains under court supervision and the order was not final.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the December 28, 2020 order was immediately appealable without N.D.R.Civ.P. 54(b) certification	The order directing distribution and trustee discharge was final and appealable	The order was not final because administration remained supervised and the order was conditional and ambiguous	Appeal not permitted without Rule 54(b); dismissed for lack of jurisdiction
Whether the December 28 order was a final judgment under N.D.R.Civ.P. 54(a)	The 90-day distribution directive and conditional discharge show finality	The conditional language and subsequent stay show administration and potential claims remain	Not final — ambiguities plus the stay demonstrate incomplete administration
Whether the Court should remand for district court 54(b) consideration	John could seek 54(b) certification to permit an immediate appeal	54(b) certification would be improper absent unusual hardship; the case does not warrant it	Court declines to remand; 54(b) would be inappropriate here

Dixon v. Dixon, 905 N.W.2d 748 (reversal and remand of earlier summary-judgment ruling)
Matter of Curtiss A. Hogen Trust B, 911 N.W.2d 305 (discussing appealability in supervised trust administration)
In re Estate of Grengs, 864 N.W.2d 424 (finality rule for supervised vs. unsupervised estates)
Investors Title Ins. Co. v. Herzig, 785 N.W.2d 863 (only final judgments and specific statutory orders are appealable)
In re Estate of Hollingsworth, 809 N.W.2d 328 (statutory nature of right to appeal)
Matter of Estate of Stensland, 574 N.W.2d 203 (framework: statutory appealability then Rule 54(b))
Pifer v. McDermott, 816 N.W.2d 88 (district court must independently assess Rule 54(b); appellate review of certification is de novo)
Capps v. Weflen, 826 N.W.2d 605 (54(b) reserved for unusual hardship or prejudice)
Gasic v. Bosworth, 845 N.W.2d 306 (order not final when it references future proceedings)
In re Estate of Starcher, 447 N.W.2d 293 (orders in supervised administration are not appealable without 54(b))