879 N.W.2d 741
S.D.2016Background
- Decedent Edward F. Bickel executed a 2008 Will and multiple codicils (2008–2009) giving specific quarter-sections of land to his son (Edward P.), daughter (Gail), grandson (Eddy/Edward J.), and great‑granddaughter (Anne‑Marie); some codicils contained erroneous legal descriptions and a later codicil removed land from Gail’s trust and attempted to give it to Anne‑Marie.
- Eddy was deeply involved in the ranch and was nominated personal representative; after Edward F.’s death (Nov. 2009) Eddy petitioned to probate the September 22, 2009 Will and an October codicil.
- Gail and Edward P. objected (capacity, undue influence). A June 2011 trial admitted the Will and Codicil; Gail’s direct appeal was dismissed for failure to serve all heirs.
- Gail later moved under SDCL 15‑6‑60(b) claiming the June 2011 trial notice defect nullified the probate order; the court denied relief.
- Subsequent contested proceedings (2012–2015) addressed scrivener‑error ambiguities in land descriptions, reformation of the Will/Codicil to reflect testamentary intent, lease terms for land held in Gail’s trust, Gail’s claims for waste/damages to household items, and Eddy’s claim for reimbursement of attorney’s fees under SDCL 29A‑3‑720.
- The circuit court (and this Court on appeal) upheld use of extrinsic evidence to correct the mistakes, reformed the documents to effectuate testator’s intent, allowed Eddy to lease Gail’s trust land at $10/acre per year (with offsets for overpayments), denied Gail’s waste/inspection relief, and awarded Eddy attorney’s fees (including a modest appellate fee award).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Gail) | Defendant's Argument (Eddy/PR) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Rule 60(b) relief for lack of notice to all heirs | The trial was void as to Gail because not all heirs received notice of the June 2011 trial; thus judgment should be vacated | SDCL 29A‑3‑105 binds persons who did receive notice; failure to notify all heirs does not automatically void the order as to notified parties | Denied: Gail was bound by the probate adjudication because she received notice; Rule 60(b) relief was not warranted |
| 2. Use of extrinsic evidence and reformation for scrivener errors in Will/Codicil | Will/Codicil were unambiguous on their face; court may not rewrite the testamentary documents to give land the testator did not own | Errors were scrivener/clerical; ambiguity exists when documents, read together, contradict testator’s evident intent; extrinsic evidence is proper to determine intent and reform descriptions | Affirmed: extrinsic evidence appropriately used; Will/Codicil reformed to effectuate testamentary intent |
| 3. Distribution of specific quarter sections (SE 1/4 to Anne‑Marie; NE 1/4 to Eddy) | Land not specifically devised in documents must pass via residuary; court should not supply property by reformation | Testator intended certain specific quarters to shift (trial testimony and attorney evidence); codicil plain errors indicate intended transfer | Affirmed: SE 1/4 reformed to Anne‑Marie in trust; NE 1/4 reformed to Eddy as intended |
| 4. Lease rate, duration, offsets, and waste/inspection claims | The codicil’s “reasonable price” language overrides $10/acre; the option to lease violates agricultural lease statutes (SDCL 43‑32) and should be limited to a year; Gail entitled to reimbursement for wasted household items and inspection of shop | Paragraph IX grants a specific $1,600/160‑acre per year option; amendment to paragraph XIII is general and does not supersede IX; exercise is annual (not a perpetual reserved long‑term lease); Gail offered no evidence of waste or of items in shop | Affirmed in part: $10/acre rate applies; court correctly allowed year‑to‑year option (not an invalid perpetual lease) and authorized offsets for overpayments; denial of waste reimbursement and shop inspection not an abuse of discretion |
| 5. Award of Eddy’s attorney’s fees under SDCL 29A‑3‑720 | Eddy defended primarily to advance his personal interests; his fees should not be charged to estate | Eddy’s defense of probate validity substantially benefited the estate by preventing intestate distribution; fees are recoverable where litigation produced substantial benefit | Affirmed: trial court did not abuse discretion in awarding reasonable attorney’s fees and expenses; appellate fee awarded in part |
Key Cases Cited
- Rabo Agrifinance, Inc. v. Rock Creek Farms, 836 N.W.2d 631 (S.D. 2013) (Rule 60(b) review on undisputed facts may be de novo)
- Estate of Geier, 809 N.W.2d 355 (S.D. 2012) (notice to all heirs required for appeals; procedural notice rules are jurisdictionally significant)
- In re Estate of Brownlee, 654 N.W.2d 206 (S.D. 2002) (will interpretation reviewed de novo; intent controls)
- In re Estate of Seefeldt, 720 N.W.2d 647 (S.D. 2006) (extrinsic evidence permissible when will language is ambiguous)
- Watertown Concrete Prods., Inc. v. Foster, 630 N.W.2d 108 (S.D. 2001) (elements for judicial estoppel)
- Wagner v. Brownlee, 713 N.W.2d 592 (S.D. 2006) (attorney’s fees awarded at court’s discretion; standard for review)
- Estate of Laue, 790 N.W.2d 765 (S.D. 2010) (estate benefits when controversies over will validity are litigated and resolved)