Russell v. Huston, 2014 ND 29

Virgil N. Huston died intestate in 2000 domiciled in Wyoming; survived by his wife Wilma J. Russell and three children (including appellant James J. Huston).
No probate occurred at death; Russell later discovered mineral rights in McKenzie County and applied in Nov. 2012 to be appointed personal representative for unsupervised administration.
Russell filed an inventory valuing eight net mineral acres at $160 (value at date of death); she sought distribution under intestacy, claiming the estate was under $100,000 so the spouse would take the intestate share.
James petitioned to remove Russell and appoint a special administrator, alleging leases were signed in 2005, production began in 2012, and substantial proceeds (possibly > $500,000) were held in suspense by an oil company.
The district court denied Russell’s motion to determine heirs (noting it would consider a formal motion later) and denied James’s removal petition, finding no wrongdoing and that the spouse was entitled to the first $100,000 under current intestacy law.
On appeal, the Supreme Court dismissed the appeal as to the heirs-determination order for lack of finality and affirmed the denial of removal for abuse-of-discretion reasons.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the order denying Russell’s petition to determine heirs is appealable	James: district court should have determined heirs now and the order is appealable	Russell: order is not final and not appealable without Rule 54(b) certification	Dismissed for lack of appellate jurisdiction; order not final
Whether Russell should be removed as personal representative	James: Russell failed to account for assets, mineral proceeds exist, emergency removal and special administrator needed	Russell: no wrongdoing; valuation and intestacy distribution correct; oil companies hold funds in suspense until probate	Affirmed — no abuse of discretion in denying removal
Proper intestacy distribution and estate valuation date	James: children entitled to portion of minerals (argues older law)	Russell: current law gives spouse first $100,000; value is date of death ($160)	Court applied current intestacy law; spouse entitled to first $100,000; minerals valued at date of death
Appealability of removal order in unsupervised probate	James: removal order is appealable	Russell: procedural finality required	Court: removal-order appealable under statute without Rule 54(b), consistent with precedent

Matter of Estate of Stensland, 574 N.W.2d 203 (N.D. 1998) (framework for appealability in unsupervised probate)
Stuckle v. Estate, 427 N.W.2d 96 (N.D. 1988) (interrelated claims affect finality in probate appeals)
In re Estate of Shubert, 839 N.W.2d 811 (N.D. 2013) (appealability of denial of petition to remove personal representative)
Estate of Hass, 643 N.W.2d 713 (N.D. 2002) (standard for removal of personal representative and appellate review)
Frandson v. Casey, 73 N.W.2d 436 (N.D. 1955) (intestacy distribution under earlier law)
In re Estate of Eggl, 783 N.W.2d 36 (N.D. 2010) (appeals from final orders affecting substantial rights)