State v. Gomez
2011 ND 29
| N.D. | 2011Background
- Bryan Haugen died in July 2006 while separated from his wife Stacy Haugen; he had no surviving descendants and both parents predeceased him.
- Bryan executed a will giving all property to S. Scott Hartvickson, who predeceased him; no residuary clause in the will.
- Informal probate was opened; Lanae Hartvickson was appointed as personal representative; Stacy and Joyce Haugen filed notices/claims including Stacy’s elective share.
- A petition to close the estate was filed in 2009; the district court approved an inventory and accounting and distributed half the estate to Stacy and half to Joyce in 2010.
- Stacy Haugen appealed, arguing she was entitled to the entire estate under intestate succession; the district court’s order was reversed and remanded.
- This Court held Stacy is entitled to the entire estate under intestate succession, and remanded for entry of an order accordingly with necessary findings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Is Stacy entitled to the entire estate under intestate succession? | Stacy as surviving spouse should inherit all. | Joyce, as potential heir under intestate rules, seeks a share. | Stacy entitled to the entire estate. |
| Does the will expressly disinherit Stacy, affecting intestate distribution? | No express disinheritance shown in the will. | Disinheritance language may limit Stacy's rights. | No express disinheritance; intestate statute governs. |
| Does Stacy's elective-share petition affect her entitlement to the full estate? | Elective-share claim could constrain full ownership. | Elective-share claim is an alternative; withdrawal not required to preserve rights. | No forfeiture; elective-share claim does not bar full intestate award. |
| Was the final inventory and accounting properly supported by findings of fact? | Findings insufficient; assets/methods not fully accounted. | Inventory and accounting were filed and sufficient for review. | Remand for explicit, adequate findings of fact. |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Estate of Samuelson, 757 N.W.2d 44 (ND 2008) (statutory interpretation of intestate and elective share; must be read plainly)
- Jordan v. Anderson, 421 N.W.2d 816 (ND 1988) (devise fails when the devisee predeceases; goes to residue)
- In re Estate of Hass, 643 N.W.2d 713 (ND 2002) (abuse-of-discretion standard; factual findings must be sufficient for review)