921 N.W.2d 672
N.D.2019Background
- Curtiss and Arline Hogen jointly owned ~737 acres. Curtiss’s will left his undivided one-half to the Curtiss A. Hogen Trust B; Arline received trust income. Rodney and Steven were co-trustees; Rodney farmed the land under rent/crop-share arrangements.
- Curtiss died 1993. Arline died March 2007; her will devised her property equally to Steven and Rodney. Steven was appointed personal representative of Arline’s estate.
- Disputes over farm finances and ownership produced prior litigation: Estate of Hogen (2015) and In re Curtiss A. Hogen Trust B (2018), resolving whether Rodney’s interests vested immediately and whether the Trust terminated on Arline’s death.
- After a 2013 probate order approving final accounting but with no closing order discharging the personal representative, Rodney and his wife quitclaimed any interest to their daughter Marby (reserving a life estate) in Feb 2014.
- Marby and Susan filed a quiet title action (June 2017) to quiet title conveyed by Rodney’s 2014 quitclaim deeds; defendants (Steven in multiple capacities) moved for summary judgment. District court granted summary judgment for defendants and canceled lis pendens; plaintiffs appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether quitclaim deeds from Rodney conveyed superior title to Marby/Susan over Estate claims | Rodney’s interest vested at Arline’s death; no deed from personal representative or trustee required; Marby/Susan hold superior title | Any interest Marby/Susan claim derives from Rodney and is subject to Estate administration and Trust encumbrances; trustees/personal rep have superior powers | Judgment affirmed: plaintiffs’ title depends on Rodney’s interest, which was encumbered by Estate administration and Trust rights, so quitclaims conveyed no superior title |
| Whether Estate administration had ended so personal representative lacked power over realty | Plaintiffs: probate court’s 2013 final accounting ended administration; no further encumbrance | Defendants: no closing order or discharge; personal representative retained power—estate still subject to administration | Held: estate remained under administration; personal representative’s power over title superior to any interest transferred by Rodney |
| Whether the Trust terminated at Arline’s death so Rodney obtained immediate vested trust property | Plaintiffs: trust terminated and Rodney became tenant in common; he could convey his one-half | Defendants: Trust language required further action; trustee retained control; Rodney only had beneficial interest, not title to specific parcels | Held: Trust did not terminate at Arline’s death; trustee retained control; quitclaims by Rodney as to Trust land were nullities |
| Whether cancellation of lis pendens was improper | Plaintiffs: lis pendens should remain until final resolution | Defendants: summary judgment justified cancellation | Held: appeal moot as summary judgment affirmed; cancellation issue not reached on merits |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Curtiss A. Hogen Trust B, 2018 ND 117, 911 N.W.2d 305 (interpreting trust termination and trustee powers)
- Estate of Hogen, 2015 ND 125, 863 N.W.2d 876 (holding devisee interests subject to probate administration and personal representative’s power)
- Carkuff v. Balmer, 2011 ND 60, 795 N.W.2d 303 (quitclaim conveys only grantor’s existing interest)
- Gajewski v. Bratcher, 221 N.W.2d 614 (N.D. 1974) (plaintiff must recover on strength of own title in quiet title action)
- Shuck v. Shuck, 44 N.W.2d 767 (N.D. 1950) (grantor who lacks title cannot convey greater interest)