Tarnavsky v. First National Bank and Trust Co.
2011 ND 211
| N.D. | 2011Background
- Ralph Bartelson’s four children included Valer, Haught, Neil, and Fischer; Valer acted as guardian and GAPS as conservator under a 2008 settlement granting review of expenditures.
- A joint checking account was held by Valer and Haught with rights of survivorship; alleged improper withdrawals prompted guardianship/conservatorship actions.
- Ralph Bartelson died August 23, 2008; probate proceeded with Valer and Haught initially as co-PRs, later replaced by GAPS as PR per 2009 stipulation and formal probate order.
- GAPS sought court approval of compensation for Valer’s damages and payments to Valer/Haught; a 2010 stipulation conditioned payments on settlement or a court judgment on misappropriation issues.
- Trial court held it lacked jurisdiction over pre-guardian misappropriation claims; this appeal challenges that jurisdictional ruling and seeks determination of whether misappropriation claims could be entertained in probate.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does probate court have jurisdiction over misappropriation claims arising before guardianship? | Bartelson/Fischer contend probate court has jurisdiction. | Valer/Haught contend probate court lacks such jurisdiction. | Court erred; probate had jurisdiction. |
| Who has standing to pursue misappropriation claims in probate? | GAPS and heirs may sue for misappropriation as fiduciaries/owners of estate. | Standing must be determined on remand. | Remand to determine standing. |
| Is misappropriation of decedent’s funds within the exclusive purview of formal probate proceedings? | Proceeds from estate assets must be determined in probate; claims fall under §30.1-12-05. | Court argued pre-guardianship claims excluded from probate. | Exclusive probate jurisdiction applies; improper to prematurely bar claims; remand for proceedings consistent with this opinion. |
Key Cases Cited
- Gustafson v. Estate of Poitra, 800 N.W.2d 842 (2011 ND 150) (jurisdictional review and probate matters in de novo context)
- Nodak Mut. Ins. Co. v. Ward Cnty. Farm Bureau, 676 N.W.2d 752 (2004 ND 60) (standing and private rights in litigation; jurisdictional necessities)
- Rebel v. Nodak Mut. Ins. Co., 585 N.W.2d 811 (1998 ND 194) (standing and private rights; fiduciary context in litigation)
- Lindemann v. Lindemann, 336 N.W.2d 112 (ND 1983) (fiduciary duties and standing in probate/estate matters)