First National Bank & Trust Co. of Williston v. Solberg, 2015 ND 122

Lyle Nelson died in 2012; his wife Lillian (Solberg) Nelson predeceased him in 2003. Lillian’s will devised Glenn Solberg 25 mineral acres and a contingent devise of 100 additional mineral acres plus an option to purchase certain farmland at $275/acre for two years after her death.
In Lillian’s 2003 probate, Solberg received 25 mineral acres and later claimed entitlement to the 100-acre devise and the purchase option against Lyle’s estate after Lyle’s 2012 death.
First National Bank, as personal representative of Lyle’s estate, disallowed Solberg’s claim, asserting Lillian owned only 25 mineral acres at death, Lyle never owned the additional property, and the claim was time-barred (should have been pursued against Lillian’s estate).
The Bank moved to dismiss, attaching portions of Lillian’s probate file; the district court granted the dismissal without explaining whether it ruled under Rule 12(b)(6) (pleadings) or Rule 56 (summary judgment/statute of limitations) or whether it took judicial notice of the probate records.
The Supreme Court reversed and remanded, holding the district court failed to state the legal basis for dismissal and did not address Solberg’s request for judicial notice of probate documents, impairing meaningful appellate review.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether dismissal was proper on pleadings under N.D.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6)	Solberg argued his complaint stated claims under his mother’s will/codicil entitling him to the additional devise and option	Bank argued property was never part of Lyle’s estate so complaint fails to state a claim	Court reversed — district court failed to state whether it dismissed under Rule 12(b)(6), so inadequate explanation requires remand
Whether dismissal should have been on statute-of-limitations grounds (Rule 56)	Solberg argued claim tied to Lillian’s will and sought judicial notice of probate records	Bank argued claim should have been asserted against Lillian’s estate and is barred by the three-year limitations period	Court reversed — district court did not specify if dismissal was on statute-of-limitations/summary judgment grounds; remand required
Whether the district court properly considered Solberg’s request for judicial notice of probate records	Solberg requested judicial notice of Williams County probate documents to prove Lillian’s dispositions	Bank opposed or relied on its own attachments; district court did not state whether it took judicial notice	Court held the court erred by not addressing the judicial-notice request under N.D.R.Ev. 201(c); remand to address it
Whether the appeal was frivolous	Solberg maintained appeal was justified due to lack of explanation	Bank argued appeal frivolous	Court rejected Bank’s frivolous-appeal argument

Brandvold v. Lewis & Clark Pub. Sch. Dist. No. 161, 803 N.W.2d 827 (N.D. 2011) (12(b)(6) motion tests legal sufficiency; well-pleaded allegations presumed true)
Vandall v. Trinity Hosps., 676 N.W.2d 88 (N.D. 2004) (pleading-construction principles on dismissal)
Mills v. City of Grand Forks, 813 N.W.2d 574 (N.D. 2012) (treating outside matters as converting a 12(b)(6) motion to summary judgment)
Zutz v. Kamrowski, 787 N.W.2d 286 (N.D. 2010) (same rule on conversion to summary judgment)
Riemers v. Omdahl, 687 N.W.2d 445 (N.D. 2004) (limitations defenses often resolved on summary judgment)
Dimond v. State Bd. of Higher Ed., 637 N.W.2d 692 (N.D. 2001) (statute-of-limitations considerations in summary judgment context)
Benz Farm, LLP v. Cavendish Farms, Inc., 803 N.W.2d 818 (N.D. 2011) (summary judgment standards and review)
Empower the Taxpayer v. Fong, 838 N.W.2d 452 (N.D. 2013) (trial court must explain reasons to permit meaningful appellate review)
Estate of Wicklund, 812 N.W.2d 359 (N.D. 2012) (appellate review requires clear trial-court rationale)
Clark v. Clark, 704 N.W.2d 847 (N.D. 2005) (same principle on need for stated reasons)
Roise v. Kurtz, 587 N.W.2d 573 (N.D. 1998) (parties must adequately raise and brief issues on appeal)