Estate of Finch, 963 N.W.2d 754

Janel Finch died January 17, 2019; her 2001 will was informally probated and siblings Mathew Finch and Christine Binstock were appointed co-personal representatives.
Dispute centered on several 2016 transfers by the decedent; Finch alleges facts suggesting possible undue influence and sought a full inquiry into those transactions but did not move to set them aside.
Finch refused to sign estate-related documents (mobile-home title transfer, mineral deed of distribution, estate checking account paperwork) pending inquiry; Binstock petitioned to remove him for failing to perform duties.
Finch counter-petitioned to remove Binstock, arguing she failed to discover decedent’s property interests and obstructed his requested inquiry; he also sought attorney’s fees under N.D.C.C. § 30.1-18-20.
The district court found the co-personal representatives could not function together, concluded Binstock’s conduct was appropriate and Finch’s conduct inappropriate, granted Binstock’s petition, denied Finch’s counter-petition, and denied attorney’s fees.
Finch appealed; the Supreme Court concluded the order was appealable (unsupervised probate) and affirmed the district court’s exercise of discretion.

Issue	Binstock's Argument	Finch's Argument	Held
Removal of Finch as co-personal representative	Finch failed to perform duties (refused to sign required transfer documents); removal in estate’s best interests	Refusal was reasonable pending a full, good-faith inquiry into 2016 transactions; justified delay	Court affirmed removal: Finch’s conduct/lack of performance inappropriate; no direct evidence of undue influence; removal not an abuse of discretion
Removal of Binstock as co-personal representative	N/A (Binstock sought to remove Finch)	Binstock failed to investigate decedent’s transfers and obstructed inquiry	Court denied Finch’s petition: Binstock provided credible evidence decedent not unduly influenced and acted appropriately
Attorney’s fees under N.D.C.C. § 30.1-18-20	Fees are recoverable when representative acts in good faith for estate benefit; Binstock acted in good faith	Finch claimed fees for his work and protective actions as co-rep	Court denied Finch’s fees: his positions lacked merit, conduct inappropriate; decision not an abuse of discretion

In re Estate of Hollingsworth, 809 N.W.2d 328 (appealability of orders in unsupervised probate)
In re Estate of Stensland, 574 N.W.2d 203 (finality and independent petitions in unsupervised probate)
In re Estate of Shubert, 839 N.W.2d 811 (standard of review and appealability in unsupervised administration)
In re Estate of Huston, 843 N.W.2d 3 (discretion in removal of personal representatives)
In re Estate of Eggl, 783 N.W.2d 36 (appealability when order resolves petitioner’s claims in unsupervised probate)
Matter of Estate of Starcher, 447 N.W.2d 293 (concluding orders and N.D.R.Civ.P. 54(b) in unsupervised probates)
In re Estate of Peterson, 561 N.W.2d 618 (attorney’s fees payable from estate require good faith and benefit to estate)
In re Estate of Hass, 643 N.W.2d 713 (standards on removal and court discretion)