In Re Estate of Bartelson, 925 N.W.2d 416

Background

Ralph Bartelson lived with and received care from daughters Jean Valer and Jane Haught; Valer held his power of attorney and they were co-owners of a joint checking account with rights of survivorship.
Neil Bartelson and Diane Fischer alleged Valer and Haught misappropriated funds; GAPS was appointed conservator and later personal representative of the Estate.
A forensic accountant reported Valer received >$154,000 and Haught >$132,000, with many transfers undocumented; a 2011 bench trial produced evidence but the original judge retired.
This litigation produced multiple appeals; the Supreme Court held Valer had a confidential relationship as a matter of law and remanded for application of the statutory presumption of undue influence (Bartelson III).
On remand the district court found both daughters failed to rebut the presumption, adopted post‑hearing counsel calculations summarizing the accountant’s evidence, and ordered substantial remittances to the Estate.
Valer and Haught moved for relief under N.D.R.Civ.P. 60(b); the district court denied relief and this appeal challenges only that denial.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the district court abused discretion by adopting post‑hearing summary calculations not formally offered under Rule 1006	Valer/Haught: summary was not admitted as evidence, contradicted accountant testimony, and they had no chance to rebut those calculations	Neil/Fischer: the attachment merely summarized evidence already admitted (accountant report and testimony) and accurately reflected amounts unsupported by documentation	Court: no abuse of discretion; attachment was counsel’s accurate summation of admitted evidence and court rationally relied on it
Whether Valer and Haught were denied due process (notice and opportunity to rebut presumption of undue influence)	Valer/Haught: they lacked notice that the presumption would be applied and lacked an opportunity for a hearing to rebut it	Neil/Fischer: misappropriation and presumption issues were raised repeatedly; evidence and opportunity existed at the 2011 hearing	Court: no due process violation; parties had notice throughout proceedings and failed to present rebuttal evidence at the 2011 hearing
Whether Rule 60(b)(6) relief was warranted	Valer/Haught: extraordinary circumstances justify reopening judgment because of procedural unfairness and reliance on untendered summary	Neil/Fischer: no extraordinary circumstances; summary reflected existing record; finality should be preserved	Court: 60(b)(6) relief is extraordinary and not shown; denial was not arbitrary or unreasonable
Proper application of N.D.C.C. § 59‑18‑01.1 presumption on remand (procedural posture)	Valer/Haught: (limited to 60(b) appeal—not relitigating presumption)	Neil/Fischer: presumption applied and burden was on Valer/Haught to account for withdrawals	Court: underlying rulings applying presumption stand; appeal only challenges denial of reconsideration and is limited accordingly

Key Cases Cited

Estate of Bartelson, 2011 ND 219, 806 N.W.2d 199 (clarifying jurisdiction and remanding for standing and misappropriation issues)
Estate of Bartelson, 2013 ND 129, 833 N.W.2d 522 (holding interested person status and requiring hearing on removal of personal representative)
Estate of Bartelson, 2015 ND 147, 864 N.W.2d 441 (holding Valer had a confidential relationship as a matter of law and presumption of undue influence applied)
Kautzman v. Doll, 2018 ND 23, 905 N.W.2d 744 (standard of review and limits on appeals from 60(b) denials)
Titan Mach., Inc. v. Patterson Enters., Inc., 2016 ND 19, 874 N.W.2d 317 (discussing Rule 1006 summaries)
Hildebrand v. Stolz, 2016 ND 225, 888 N.W.2d 197 (Rule 60(b)(6) is a limited, extraordinary remedy)
Anderson v. Baker, 2015 ND 269, 871 N.W.2d 830 (burden on movant for relief from final judgment)
Holbach v. Dixon, 2007 ND 60, 730 N.W.2d 613 (due process requires notice and opportunity to be heard)