Estate of Paulson
2012 ND 40
| N.D. | 2012Background
- Lee Paulson executed a June 26, 2009 antenuptial agreement with Risovi and a will providing Risovi with unconditional devises and a testamentary trust for Risovi’s daughter.
- The will defined “my spouse” as Robyn Risovi and included a footnote stating the will was prepared in anticipation of the July 18, 2009 marriage.
- Lee Paulson died on July 15, 2009, three days before the planned wedding.
- Risovi petitioned for construction; the Paulson family also petitioned for construction.
- The district court held the will unambiguous, Risovi was an unconditional devisee, and refused to read the antenuptial agreement with the will; distribution was ordered accordingly.
- The Paulson family appealed the district court’s construction and related orders.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Did the will create conditional devises dependent on marriage? | Paulson family: devises to Risovi were conditioned by marriage. | Risovi: language is descriptive, not conditional; will operative before and after marriage. | Will is unambiguous; devises are unconditional. |
| Should the antenuptial agreement be construed with the will due to contemporaneous execution? | Paulson family: contemporaneous instruments should be read together. | Risovi: no incorporation by reference; extrinsic evidence not permitted with unambiguous will. | Contemporaneous-execution rule not applied; extrinsic evidence excluded; no read-together construction. |
| Can section 30.1-10-05 (reformation) apply to this will? | Family seeks reform based on post-death statute. | Statute is not applicable; no plain error; rights vested before statute. | Statute cannot reform the will; Risovi’s rights vested before the statute’s effective date. |
Key Cases Cited
- Estate of Zimbleman, 539 N.W.2d 67 (N.D. 1995) (unambiguous will determination and interpretation of conditions)
- Estate of Neshem, 574 N.W.2d 883 (N.D. 1998) (ambiguous vs unambiguous will; extrinsic evidence limits)
- Brown v. Brown, 559 N.W.2d 818 (N.D. 1997) (ambiguous vs unambiguous wills; descriptive terms okay)
- Ruud v. Frandson, 704 N.W.2d 852 (N.D. 2005) (conditions in wills; strict parsing of conditions)
- Barnstable v. United States Nat’l Bank, 374 P.2d 386 (Or. 1962) (descriptive terms do not create conditions)