Estate of Pedro v. Scheeler
2014 ND 237
| N.D. | 2014Background
- Margaret Pedro, domiciled in Nevada, died in 1997; her 1990 will was probated informally in North Dakota in 1999 and Jack Scheeler was appointed personal representative. No inventory or closing documents were subsequently filed.
- In July 2012 the district court construed the will and determined Denan Pedro inherited the entire estate; Daniel Scheeler did not appeal that judgment.
- After the 2012 judgment, Daniel (self-represented) filed numerous documents and in November 2013 moved to compel the personal representative to file a supplementary inventory.
- The personal representative opposed, arguing Daniel’s motion failed to comply with rules, was barred by res judicata, and frivolous.
- In December 2013 the district court denied Daniel’s motion, awarded attorney fees to the personal representative, and barred Daniel from further filings in the case; Daniel appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Daniel) | Defendant's Argument (Personal Representative/Jack) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether court should order filing of a supplementary inventory | Daniel sought an order compelling a supplementary inventory for the estate | The representative said Daniel lacked standing/interest after the 2012 judgment, motion was procedurally defective, and relief was barred by res judicata | Court: Daniel failed to show statutory grounds; res judicata and loss of "interested person" status after judgment barred relief; motion frivolous |
| Whether district court erred in awarding attorney fees for frivolous filings | Daniel contended fees/sanctions were improper | Representative argued court may sanction frivolous claims under statute, rule, and inherent power | Court: No abuse of discretion; filings were frivolous and fees were properly awarded |
| Whether appellate sanctions are warranted for frivolous appeal | Daniel appealed denial and sanctions | Representative requested fees and double costs under N.D.R.App.P. 38 | Court: Appeal contained flagrantly groundless arguments; awarded $1,000 attorney fees plus double costs |
| Whether Daniel should be barred from further filings in the case | Daniel contested the filing ban | Representative argued repeated frivolous filings justified bar to protect court and parties | Court: District court’s restrictions and prior injunctions were reasonable in context; order affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- Jordan v. Anderson, 421 N.W.2d 816 (N.D. 1988) (defining interested persons affected by probate proceedings)
- Federal Land Bank v. Ziebarth, 520 N.W.2d 51 (N.D. 1994) (recognizing court’s inherent power to control docket and sanction abuses)
- Strand v. Cass County, 753 N.W.2d 872 (N.D. 2008) (district court must award fees when a claim is found frivolous under statute)
- Estate of Dion, 623 N.W.2d 720 (N.D. 2001) (standard for when a claim is frivolous: complete absence of facts or law)
- In re Hirsch, 848 N.W.2d 719 (N.D. 2014) (criteria for awarding fees and double costs on frivolous appeals under N.D.R.App.P. 38)