938 N.W.2d 151
N.D.2020Background
- Glen sued his wife Sharleen for divorce in 2010; Sharleen died in 2013 before a final divorce decree, and the divorce action abated on appeal.
- Mark (their son) was appointed personal representative (PR) of Sharleen’s estate; Mark and the Estate defended multiple claims brought by Glen and Alan.
- In 2017 the Estate petitioned for return, partition, and sale of farm machinery, vehicles, 2012 crop proceeds, and funds from a farm checking account, alleging Sharleen owned a one-half interest.
- At trial the district court found Glen and Sharleen operated the farm together, the farm checking account was jointly owned, and many farm assets were acquired with joint funds; it awarded the Estate one-half of equipment/vehicles ($142,108.50), one-half of 2012 crop proceeds ($167,780.13), and one-half of the farm account ($20,538.54).
- The court also approved the Estate’s attorney’s fees and awarded the PR $25,480 for services. Glen appealed, arguing (1) the court improperly adopted the Estate’s proposed findings, (2) Sharleen had no ownership interest in the assets or proceeds at death, and (3) the fees awarded were unreasonable.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Estate/Mark) | Defendant's Argument (Glen) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Court adopted Estate’s proposed findings verbatim | Adoption permitted under Rule 7.1; findings become the court’s when signed | Adoption was improper and prejudicial | Affirmed — adoption is permissible; findings are the court’s and are upheld unless clearly erroneous |
| Ownership of farm equipment, machinery, and vehicles | Sharleen owned one-half as tenant in common; assets purchased/maintained from joint farm account | Glen is sole owner; some titles in his name and some assets allegedly inherited by him | Affirmed — record supported joint ownership; titles not dispositive given joint funding/use |
| Entitlement to 2012 crop proceeds | Because Glen and Sharleen operated the farm together, Estate entitled to half of crop-sale proceeds | Any joint interest in crops terminated on death; expenses should be accounted for | Affirmed — court awarded half; found expenses paid from joint account pre-death and no evidence of post-death expenses |
| Interest in farm checking account funds | Farm account was joint; Estate entitled to half under presumption of equal contribution between spouses | Account moved into Glen’s sole-name and no POD/beneficiary; Glen is sole owner | Affirmed — evidence showed joint account and presumption of equal contributions applied |
| Allowance of attorney’s fees and PR compensation | Fees and PR services were necessary to defend/administrate estate and benefited the estate | Fees primarily benefited PR or were unreasonable | Affirmed — district court did not abuse discretion in allowing attorney’s fees and PR compensation |
Key Cases Cited
- Dale Expl., LLC v. Hiepler, 920 N.W.2d 750 (N.D. 2018) (adopted proposed findings become the court’s; wholesale adoption disfavored but not reversible if not clearly erroneous)
- In re Guardianship of P.T., 857 N.W.2d 367 (N.D. 2014) (court’s adoption of one party’s proposed findings is not alone reversible error)
- McKechnie v. Berg, 667 N.W.2d 628 (N.D. 2003) (legal title is strong evidence of ownership but court may look beyond title when assets were purchased with joint funds)
- In re Estate of Peterson, 561 N.W.2d 618 (N.D. 1997) (PR may recover reasonable attorney’s fees if actions were in good faith and benefited the estate)
- In re Estate of Loomer, 782 N.W.2d 648 (N.D. 2010) (district court has wide equitable discretion in partition actions)
- In re Estate of Hogen, 863 N.W.2d 876 (N.D. 2015) (review of PR compensation is for abuse of discretion)