Estate of Harris
2017 ND 35
| N.D. | 2017Background
- Steven H. Harris’s will created Trust A (corpus included oil and gas interests) for Mary Harris (income for life) with remainder to his children (including Bruce). Mary was appointed trustee and personal representative.
- Bruce Harris sued (2010) seeking trust accountings and successor trustee, alleging lack of records, incompetence, and improper transactions; matters were set for hearing in December 2014.
- The parties signed stipulations resolving aspects of the trust and estate; at the December 4, 2014 hearing Bruce (then pro se but represented) acknowledged on the record that he understood the stipulations and his right to review trust records; court entered judgment on stipulation.
- Bruce moved under N.D.R.Civ.P. 60(b) in February 2015 to vacate the judgment, alleging lack of mutual assent, fraud/misrepresentation (including reliance on an affidavit by Terry Harris), ineffective counsel, and that a statutory presumption of undue influence should apply; the district court denied relief in June 2015.
- On appeal, the Supreme Court affirmed: Rule 60(b) relief is extraordinary; Bruce failed to prove by clear and convincing evidence fraud, misrepresentation, or lack of assent; alleged discovery/nonproduction issues were remedyable by contempt or enforcement, not vacation of the judgment.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Bruce) | Defendant's Argument (Mary/Trustee) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether judgment on stipulation should be vacated for fraud/misrepresentation under Rule 60(b)(3) | Bruce said he was induced to sign by misrepresentations (e.g., Terry’s affidavit denying transfers) and lack of produced records | Trustee said Bruce voluntarily agreed, acknowledged rights on record, and failed to prove fraud by clear and convincing evidence | Denied — Bruce did not meet the clear-and-convincing standard; no abuse of discretion |
| Whether judgment should be vacated under Rule 60(b)(6) for counsel misadvice/drafting/timing | Bruce claimed prior counsel misled him about the ability to object and the stipulations were dated prematurely | Trustee argued rule 60(b)(6) is not an avenue to undo a knowingly entered stipulation; enforcement remedies exist | Denied — court found no sufficient evidence of attorney-induced fraud; stipulation merged into judgment and was unambiguous |
| Whether alleged failure to provide accounting justified vacatur rather than enforcement | Bruce argued nonproduction of documents meant he lacked assent and was harmed | Trustee/ court pointed to remedies (show-cause/contempt) and that nonproduction does not void the stipulation | Denied — remedy is contempt or enforcement, not Rule 60(b) relief |
| Whether statutory presumption of undue influence (N.D.C.C. §59‑18‑01.1) required vacation | Bruce argued trustee-beneficiary transaction triggers a rebuttable presumption of undue influence | Trustee argued presumption is rebutted where beneficiary had independent counsel and expressly consented in open court | Denied — court held presumption rebutted as a matter of law where beneficiary, with independent counsel, entered stipulation and acknowledged terms on the record |
Key Cases Cited
- Grinaker v. Grinaker, 553 N.W.2d 204 (N.D. 1996) (Rule 60(b) is extraordinary relief; granted only in exceptional circumstances)
- Peterson v. Peterson, 555 N.W.2d 359 (N.D. 1996) (judgment entered on stipulation requires contract-law justification to set aside; Rule 60(b)(3) allows vacatur for fraud inducing stipulation)
- Silbernagel v. Silbernagel, 800 N.W.2d 320 (N.D. 2011) (settlement merged into judgment is construed as final judgment; unambiguous language controls)
- Bartelson, Estate of v. Bartelson, 864 N.W.2d 441 (N.D. 2015) (statutory presumption of undue influence applies to trustee–beneficiary transactions in which trustee gains an advantage)