Riskey v. Riskey, 917 N.W.2d 488

Background

After Gilbert Riskey died in 2003, Annette and Gilbert’s testamentary plan was replaced by a 2004 irrevocable trust signed by Annette (settlor) and naming sons Rodney and Jeffrey as co-trustees; the trust included an option allowing Rodney to buy specified farmland and homestead for $65,000 within six months of Annette’s death.
Jeffrey (co-trustee) received only a signature page in 2004 and did not learn of the purchase-option provision until 2015; the property’s market value undisputedly exceeded $65,000.
Annette reserved a life estate by warranty deed in 2004; she died in November 2015, and Rodney sought to exercise the purchase option, which Jeffrey refused to sign.
Rodney sued to compel performance of the option; Jeffrey and other siblings sued separately to reform/void the trust, alleging Rodney unduly influenced Annette in creating the trust terms.
The district court granted Rodney summary judgment, finding the siblings failed to produce sufficient evidence to create a genuine issue on undue influence, particularly as to (1) Rodney’s disposition to exercise undue influence and (2) whether the purchase option appeared to be the effect of undue influence—noting the option mirrored prior testamentary documents.
The Supreme Court of North Dakota affirmed, holding that even viewed most favorably to the siblings, the record did not support that the purchase option was the product of Rodney’s undue influence.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Rodney had a disposition to exercise undue influence in creation of the 2004 trust	Plaintiffs (siblings) argued Rodney actively participated: arranged and attended meetings with attorney, used his knowledge of farming/land value, and benefited disproportionately	Rodney argued he merely assisted at his mother’s request, did not direct legal advice or draft terms, and did not discuss desired trust terms with Annette or the attorney	Court held plaintiffs failed to raise a genuine factual dispute on disposition; evidence showed opportunity/motive but not active participation in securing or shaping the trust terms
Whether the purchase-option provision was the apparent effect of undue influence	Plaintiffs argued the option’s unequal benefit and Annette’s lack of understanding/support for fairness suggested it resulted from undue influence	Rodney and court pointed to identical purchase-option language and price in earlier testamentary documents and attorney testimony that the trust mirrored prior wills	Court held the fourth factor dispositive: prior testamentary documents and lack of evidence of coercion meant the option did not appear to be the effect of undue influence
Whether summary judgment was improper because undue-influence claims are fact-intensive	Plaintiffs argued undue-influence claims typically present questions of fact unsuitable for summary judgment	Rodney argued plaintiffs failed to produce admissible evidence creating a genuine issue for trial	Court reiterated that undue-influence claims can be decided on summary judgment if the opposing party fails to present sufficient specific facts; affirmed summary judgment here
Whether a presumption of undue influence should apply due to confidential relationship	Plaintiffs did not invoke the statutory rebuttable presumption below or on appeal	Rodney noted the presumption was not pleaded or argued	Court deemed the issue abandoned and did not apply the presumption

Key Cases Cited

Maragos v. Newfield Prod. Co., 900 N.W.2d 44 (2017) (articulating North Dakota summary judgment standard)
Erickson v. Olsen, 844 N.W.2d 585 (2014) (discussing undue influence and the factors for nontestamentary transactions)
Boone v. Estate of Nelson, 264 N.W.2d 881 (N.D. 1978) (explaining when undue-influence claims may be resolved on summary judgment)
In re Estate of Stave, 729 N.W.2d 706 (2007) (setting four-factor test for undue influence in will contests)
In re Estate of Polda, 349 N.W.2d 11 (1984) (motive and opportunity alone insufficient without evidence influence was exerted)
In re Estate of Herr, 460 N.W.2d 699 (1990) (similar principle that evidence must show influence actually exerted)