893 N.W.2d 755
N.D.2017Background
- Charlotte Nohle died in 1957; her 1951 will devised mineral interests among her living brothers and sisters and the children of predeceased siblings (anti‑lapse language). A final decree of distribution was entered in 1961 and a supplemental decree in 1965; neither distributed any share to the descendants of Margaret Hanger (a predeceased child of Thomas Freeman).
- In 2015 Timothy and Sharla Bruun petitioned to be successor co-personal representatives of the estate; the court reopened the estate to permit distribution of any newly discovered assets and appointed the Bruuns.
- Dori Lentz (pro se, not licensed in ND) moved under N.D.R.Civ.P. 60(b)(6) in 2015 to modify the 1961 and 1965 decrees, asserting Margaret Hanger’s children were devisees and earlier distributions were improper; she later added signatures of two purported co‑petitioners.
- The Bruuns moved to strike, argued Lentz was not a proper party, that laches/time bars applied, and that Lentz engaged in unauthorized practice of law; they sought attorney’s fees. The district court warned Lentz she needed counsel to continue filing and ordered her to disclose any newly discovered assets (she did not).
- The district court struck the motion to modify, upheld the old decrees, found the Rule 60(b) motion untimely and procedurally inappropriate, held laches barred claims by Margaret Hanger’s descendants, found Lentz acted without authorization and not in good faith, and ordered Lentz to pay $26,170.50 in attorney’s fees. Lentz appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Lentz) | Defendant's Argument (Bruun) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Rule 60(b)(6) relief may modify 1961/1965 distribution decrees | The decrees improperly omitted Margaret Hanger’s children; relief under Rule 60(b)(6) is appropriate to correct distribution | The motion is procedurally inappropriate, claims are time‑barred, and prior decrees are final | Court denied relief; motion untimely, procedurally inappropriate, and no sufficient grounds to disturb finality |
| Whether laches/time bars preclude claims by Hanger’s descendants | Laches not shown; Bruuns failed to prove prejudice; Lentz sought distribution only of newly discovered assets | Delay (~50 years) prejudiced rights and reliance; laches and statutory time bars apply | Court held laches and delay (unreasonable time) bar the claims |
| Whether Lentz could prosecute claims/represent others pro se | Lentz signed motion purporting to act for others and sought relief on their behalf | Lentz is not a licensed attorney and cannot represent others; filings constituted unauthorized practice of law | Court found unauthorized practice and Lentz not a proper party to represent others |
| Whether attorney’s fees should be awarded against Lentz | Claims were made in good faith, not frivolous | Filings were frivolous, not in good faith, caused unnecessary expense; fees recoverable under court’s inherent power and statutes | Court awarded $26,170.50 as reasonable fees; appellate court affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Estate of Cashmore, 836 N.W.2d 427 (N.D. 2013) (standard of review for Rule 60(b) relief)
- Murphy v. Rossow, 787 N.W.2d 746 (N.D. 2010) (abuse of discretion review for Rule 60(b) decisions)
- Meier v. Meier, 848 N.W.2d 253 (N.D. 2014) (Rule 60(b)(6) is catch‑all; extraordinary circumstances required)
- Anderson v. Baker, 871 N.W.2d 830 (N.D. 2015) (limits on using subsection (6) alone for relief)
- Bettger v. Bettger, 280 N.W.2d 915 (N.D. 1979) (extraordinary showing required for Rule 60(b)(6))
- Bellefeuille v. Bellefeuille, 636 N.W.2d 195 (N.D. 2001) (what constitutes a reasonable time for Rule 60(b) motions)
- Federal Land Bank v. Ziebarth, 520 N.W.2d 51 (N.D. 1994) (court’s inherent power to control docket and curb abuses)
- Strand v. Cass County, 753 N.W.2d 872 (N.D. 2008) (statutory standard for frivolous claims and mandatory fee award)