Estate of Lindberg, 2 N.W.3d 220

Arlen Lindberg died intestate (without a will), without a surviving spouse.
Chad Hanson, claiming to be Lindberg’s only child, filed a petition to determine heirship, supported by genetic evidence linking him to Lindberg’s family.
The estate and Lindberg's family opposed, arguing that Hanson’s stepfather had adopted him and thus terminated Lindberg’s parental rights.
The district court denied Hanson’s petition, holding that North Dakota’s Uniform Parentage Act (U.P.A.) governed and barred Hanson’s claim due to untimeliness and a presumption of paternity for Hanson’s stepfather.
Hanson appealed, contending the district court misapplied both the Probate and Parentage Codes and misread the legal effect of his adoption.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether U.P.A. or U.P.C. determines heirship	U.P.C. allows multiple ways to establish parenthood, not just U.P.A.	U.P.A. exclusively controls determination of genetic parents	U.P.C. is not limited by U.P.A.; district court misapplied statutes
Effect of presumption of paternity for stepfather	No presumption as facts don’t satisfy the statute’s duration requirement	Step-father’s early residence creates U.P.A. presumption	No presumption; statute requires residence for full two years
Impact of adoption on heirship and parental status	Adoption did not fully sever the inheritance path under U.P.C.	Adoption adjudicated step-father as legal father	Adoption and adjudication differ; adoption does not sever right to inherit from biological parent
Timeliness of action under U.P.A.	U.P.C. does not bar claim on this ground, regardless of U.P.A. timeline	U.P.A. requires timely action; claim is untimely	U.P.C. provisions govern; U.P.A. time bar inapplicable in this context

Hoffarth v. Hoffarth, 949 N.W.2d 824 (N.D. 2020) (discussing appellate jurisdiction and timeliness of appeals)
C & K Consulting, LLC v. Ward Cnty. Bd. of Comm’rs, 942 N.W.2d 823 (N.D. 2020) (construing timeliness of appeal and effect of Rule 59/60 motions)