State v. Bruederle
2012 ND 23
| N.D. | 2012Background
- Harriet Clemetson died October 2, 2009; Kenneth Evanson sought appointment as personal representative and listed grandchildren as intestate heirs.
- Philip Sprague filed a petition for formal probate of an undated, unsigned document he claimed was Harriet’s will, purportedly naming all grandchildren and step-grandchildren.
- The district court found Harriet’s will was duly executed, but could not be found at death, and Sprague failed to prove it existed at death by a preponderance.
- A presumption of animo revocandi applies when a missing will cannot be found, presumed destroyed by testator, unless rebutted with credible evidence.
- The court credited testimony showing hard feelings and pressure from the Sprague side, and distress at the August 2009 auction, influencing Harriet’s revocation of the 1995 will.
- The district court ultimately denied Sprague’s petition, concluding the presumption was not rebutted and that the grandchildren inherited under intestate succession.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Was Harriet’s undated will duly executed? | Sprague: prima facie due execution shown. | Evanson: unsigned/undated document cannot prove due execution. | Yes; court held will was duly executed under statutory requirements. |
| Does the missing-will presumption apply to revoke Harriet’s will? | Sprague: presumption does not apply since evidence shows a will existed. | Evanson: missing will presumed revoked when not found. | Yes; presumption applied. |
| Was the presumption rebutted by Sprague by a preponderance of the evidence? | Sprague: credible evidence supports existence at death. | Evanson: evidence lacks credibility and fails to prove existence at death. | No; presumption not rebutted. |
| Did the district court properly assess credibility and the underlying facts supporting the presumption? | Sprague: credibility favored existence of the will. | Evanson: credibility favored absence of the will and revocation. | Yes; findings not clearly erroneous; presumption upheld. |
Key Cases Cited
- Estate of Conley, 2008 ND 148 (ND 2008) (presumption of animo revocandi; burden to rebut with preponderance)
- O’Neill v. O’Neill, 2000 ND 200 (ND 2000) (whether prima facie case established; standard of review)
- Helbling v. Helbling, 541 N.W.2d 443 (ND 1995) (prima facie proof; what constitutes evidence strong enough)
- Tank v. Tank, 2004 ND 15 (ND 2004) (prima facie case is a bare minimum; standard of proof)
- Estate of Mecello, 633 N.W.2d 892 (Neb. 2001) (distinguishes presumption when evidence insufficient due to access to will)