Estates of Vizenor and Vizenor v. Mesling
2014 ND 143
| N.D. | 2014Background
- Estates of Carolyn and Leonard Vizenor sue Clifford and Linda Stecher over a deed transfer of Mesling’s North Dakota real estate to the Stechers in 2006, while Mesling acted as Carolyn’s attorney-in-fact under a Minnesota power of attorney.
- Carolyn was severely ill with metastatic melanoma; Mesling and Carolyn requested Carolyn return to her mother’s care in Minnesota before she died.
- In 2005 Carolyn executed a Minnesota short-form durable POA designating Mesling as attorney-in-fact and Leonard as successor; the form included broad “all of the powers” language.
- In November 2006 Mesling, as Carolyn’s attorney-in-fact, transferred Carolyn’s property to the Stechers without consideration and reserved Carolyn’s life estate; Carolyn died the following day.
- The district court found Mesling had authority under the POA to transfer the North Dakota real property to the Stechers, rejected undue influence, and dismissed the Vizenors’ claims; post-trial motions were denied.
- The appellate court affirmed, holding the Minnesota POA, interpreted under North Dakota law for the North Dakota land, authorized the gift; no credible evidence of confidential breach or undue influence; and no reversible error in post-judgment rulings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Authority to gift under POA | Vizenors contend Minnesota POA did not authorize gifts to unrelated third parties. | Stechers/Mesling argue broad authority via “N” and all powers, including gifts. | Yes; POA authorized gifts and to transfer property without consideration. |
| Confidential relationship and undue influence | Presumption of undue influence applies in trustee-beneficiary dealings. | No credible undue influence shown against Stechers. | District court proper; no undue influence evidenced. |
| Effect of recording and nonrevocation requirements | Third parties must rely on nonrevocation records; original POA record concerns. | Recording sufficient; ND law governs validity of transfer of ND land. | Recording adequate; POA valid under applicable law. |
| Burden of proof and standard on gift validity | District court misapplied burden of proof for validity of gift. | Weight of the evidence supports validity; credibility assessments proper. | District court did not err; findings supported by record. |
Key Cases Cited
- Alerus Fin., N.A. v. Western State Bank, 2008 ND 104 (ND) (agency and fiduciary duties under POA)
- Brash v. Gulleson, 2013 ND 156 (ND) (bench trial credibility not set aside on appeal)
- Burlington N. & Santa Fe Ry. v. Burlington Res. Oil & Gas Co., 1999 ND 39 (ND) (agency and fiduciary duties; weight of evidence standard)
- MayPort Farmers Co-Op v. St. Hilaire Seed Co., Inc., 2012 ND 257 (ND) (clearly erroneous standard; discretionary rulings)
- Roberts v. N.D. Dep’t of Human Servs., 2005 ND 50 (ND) (confidential relationship; fiduciary duties)