State v. Bruederle
2012 ND 26
| N.D. | 2012Background
- Maurice Wicklund, age 94, died in 2009 owning North Dakota mineral interests and domiciled in Michigan with Betty Wicklund.
- Maurice and Betty executed a joint estate plan on August 22, 2006, including a will and a Living Trust; Maurice disinherited Brian Wicklund and Deborah Williams in the will.
- The Living Trust named the settlors as trustees and authorized revocation/amendment; it provided a mineral-interest provision to Brian Wicklund and Deborah Williams and a residue to Sandra Miller upon certain events.
- Maurice’s will referenced the Trust and directed payment of debts, expenses, and administration; the will’s pour-over mechanism directed mineral interests to transfer to the Trust for disposition per the Trust terms.
- Betty petitioned for Michigan-based elective share, homestead, exempt property, family allowance, and reimbursement and fees; district court granted these claims and in-kind mineral distribution to Betty as reimbursement, totaling over $138,500 value.
- The district court treated the will and Trust as controlling the disposition and found the mineral interests subject to the Trust during the lifetime of the surviving settlor; the opinion remanded for further proceedings to address calculation details.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Interpretation of will and Trust together | Wicklund children contend minerals pass to them via the Trust. | Trust and will, read together, show Betty’s administration and funding of expenses; minerals subject to Trust. | Plain language effectuates intent; remand unnecessary for this issue. |
| Elective share and related allowances | Elective share should reflect Maurice’s intent to pass minerals to children and reduce for non-probate transfers. | Elective share is based on decedent’s domicile; should be calculated under Michigan law with proper reductions and basis. | Remand required for proper computation and explanation of elective share. |
| Costs, fees, and allowances | District court awarded costs and fees based on general allowances; requires specific dollar determinations. | Fees and costs are proper under both Michigan and North Dakota law; must specify amounts and basis. | Remand required to determine exact administration costs and personal representative fees. |
| Homestead, exempt property, and family allowances | Michigan-based allowances should be constrained by the estate and trust structure; requests may be satisfied from non-probate assets. | Allowances governed by domicile-law and applicable Michigan statutes; may be satisfied from various assets. | Court did not clearly err; allowances upheld but remand potential for further justification. |
Key Cases Cited
- Bullis v. Downes, 612 N.W.2d 435 (Mich. Ct. App. 2000) (treats will and trust together when part of same estate plan)
- Duemeland v. Norback, 2003 ND 1 (N.D. 2003) (requires joint consideration of will and trust language)
- Investors Title Ins. Co. v. Herzig, 2010 ND 169 (N.D. 2010) (trusts and estates construing over interrelated documents)
- Langer v. Pender, 2009 ND 51 (N.D. 2009) (standards for reviewing district court factual findings in probate)
- Maloney Trust, 377 N.W.2d 791 (Mich. 1985) (intent of settlor gleaned from instrument language when not ambiguous)
- In re Nowels Estate, 339 N.W.2d 861 (Mich. Ct. App. 1983) (extrinsic evidence allowed when documents ambiguous)