Estate of Johnson, 2015 ND 110

Jeanne Johnson died in 2010; her residuary estate (including a quarter section of land: farmland + 9-acre farmstead) was devised to Stuart Johnson, Sandra Mark (personal representative), and Scott Johnson.
In April 2010 Stuart leased the farmland; in October 2010 Mark (as personal representative) and Stuart executed a self-renewing cash-rent lease with an unbreakable option to purchase at an appraised price ($248,222).
Steven Johnson later claimed ownership under a contract for deed; that claim was litigated and dismissed (affirmed on appeal in Johnson v. Mark).
In 2013 Scott and Steven sought a court order directing distribution of a one-third interest in the farmland to them and enjoining Mark from selling it to Stuart; the district court denied relief, finding Mark acted reasonably for interested persons, and authorized the sale.
The sale to Stuart was later conveyed by personal representative’s deed; appellants appealed and Mark moved to dismiss the appeal as moot.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the appeal is moot because the farmland was sold	Scott/Steven: Sale to Stuart cannot moot appeal because Stuart is an interested devisee and Court can still provide relief	Mark: Sale precludes relief; appeal is moot (analogous to In re Estate of Shubert)	Not moot — sale to an interested devisee does not eliminate this Court’s jurisdiction and does not bar review
Whether a personal representative may lease/sell estate realty to a devisee	Scott/Steven: Title devolved at death to devisees; PR exceeded authority by leasing with option and selling to Stuart	Mark: PR has statutory power to control, lease, and sell estate property if acting reasonably for benefit of interested persons	PR has statutory authority to possess, lease, and sell estate land, but only if acting reasonably for benefit of interested persons
Whether district court properly found Mark acted reasonably for interested persons when entering the lease/option	Scott/Steven: District court lacked basis; no evidence supporting reasonableness or necessity of the transaction	Mark: Court implicitly found lease/sale necessary (argued to cover administration costs)	Reversed — district court’s finding is clearly erroneous because it failed to explain or cite evidence; remanded for further findings or additional evidence

In re Estate of Shubert, 839 N.W.2d 811 (N.D. 2013) (appeal moot where sale to uninterested good-faith purchasers was completed without stay)
Johnson v. Mark, 834 N.W.2d 291 (N.D. 2013) (prior appeal affirming dismissal of specific-performance claim against estate)
In re Estate of Hass, 643 N.W.2d 713 (N.D. 2002) (upholding PR’s sale of farmland where sale was reasonable for estate/beneficiaries)
Green v. Gustafson, 482 N.W.2d 842 (N.D. 1992) (statutory recognition of PR’s power to sell estate property)
Boe v. Rose, 574 N.W.2d 834 (N.D. 1998) (discussing PR’s power over title during administration)
In re Estate of Wicklund, 812 N.W.2d 359 (N.D. 2012) (standards for appellate review of probate factual findings)