Hartvickson v. Haugen
794 N.W.2d 448
| N.D. | 2011Background
- Bryan Haugen died in July 2006; he was separated from his wife Stacy and had no surviving descendants or surviving parents.
- Bryan had a will leaving property to S. Scott Hartviekson, who predeceased Bryan; the will had no residuary clause.
- Lanae Hartviekson was appointed personal representative; Stacy and Joyce Haugen sought notice and Stacy exercised an elective share.
- A petition to close the estate was filed in 2009; inventory and accounting were filed; the district court distributed half the estate to Stacy and half to Joyce in 2010.
- Stacy appealed alleging she was entitled to the entire estate under intestacy; Joyce argued under intestate provisions some portion should go to her.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Is Stacy entitled to the entire estate under intestate succession? | Stacy argues no descendants/parents survive; she should receive all. | Joyce contends the estate should be split under intestacy. | Stacy is entitled to the entire estate. |
| Did the devise to Hartviekson fail and thus intestate succession applies? | Because Hartviekson predeceased, the devise fails and passes to intestacy. | Not addressed separately; focus on intestacy rights. | Yes; the devise failed and the estate passes by intestacy. |
| Was the district court's half/half distribution proper under elective share and intestacy? | Elective share distribution was improper; entire estate should go to Stacy. | Argues for split under elective share. | Incorrect; Stacy is entitled to the entire estate. |
| Did the Will explicitly disinherit Stacy under express terms? | Disinheritance was not express in the will. | Argues potential implied disinheritance due to language. | Disinheritance not express; claims fail. |
| Did the district court abuse its discretion by inadequately addressing the inventory and accounting findings? | Findings were insufficient and not properly reviewed. | Court relied on submitted inventory/accounting. | Remand for proper findings; ordering further proceedings. |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Estate of Samuelson, 757 N.W.2d 44 (ND 2008) (statutory interpretation of intestate and elective share)
- Jordan v. Anderson, 421 N.W.2d 816 (ND 1988) (devisee predeceasing testator; residue)
- Haugrose v. Anderson, 765 N.W.2d 677 (ND 2009) (need for specific findings of fact for appellate review)
- In re Estate of Hass, 643 N.W.2d 713 (ND 2002) (abuse of discretion standard; review of inventory)
- In re Estate of Cashmore, 787 N.W.2d 261 (ND 2010) (abuse of discretion; review of final accounting)