Wicklund v. Wicklund
2014 ND 64
| N.D. | 2014Background
- Maurice Wicklund died at 94 in Sept 2009, owning North Dakota mineral interests; he and Betty were Michigan residents at the time.
- Maurice and Betty executed a joint estate plan in Aug 2006, including a pour-over will and a revocable Living Trust; Betty was named personal representative and to receive the residue as trustee.
- Maurice’s will directed the trustee to pay administration expenses, allowances, and claims; the plan provided for the surviving spouse’s lifetime use of trust income and principal.
- The 2012 Supreme Court decision Wicklund, 2012 ND 29, held the plan funded a surviving spouse through lifetime use and paid expenses before any conveyance of mineral interests.
- Upon remand, the district court awarded Betty an elective share, administration costs, attorney fees, personal representative fees, and funeral and last illness expenses, distributing ND mineral interests in-kind due to estate value limits.
- The surviving children appealed arguing errors in funeral expense reimbursement, fees, and treatment of post-death income; the court affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Funeral and last illness expenses reimbursement | Wicklund children claim Miller paid expenses without timely creditor claim. | Betty, as personal representative, authorized to pay these expenses under the will and statutes. | Affirmed reimbursement of $15,414 to Betty. |
| Attorney fees and administration costs | Fees should be limited; some were for elective share pursuit not for estate benefit. | Fees were for pursuing testamentary intent and administration; court has discretion to award reasonable fees. | Affirmed award of $53,411.03 for attorney fees and administration costs. |
| Personal representative fees | Beneficiary-focused actions should not justify rep fees if not for estate benefit. | Fees justified by good-faith administration to effectuate the will and trust. | Affirmed $10,000 personal representative fees. |
| Inclusion of post-death mineral-income in elective share | Post-death income should be included in the elective share; increases estate for beneficiaries. | Income treatment depends on Michigan law governing the domicile; requires remand calculation. | Court did not resolve further; affirmance based on staying with amount and in-kind distribution under prior remand instructions. |
Key Cases Cited
- Estate of Wicklund, 812 N.W.2d 359 (ND: 2012) (set the law of the case on testamentary intent and the trust funding of surviving spouse)
- Rohrich, 496 N.W.2d 566 (ND: 1993) (distinguishes personal representative fees vs. beneficiary fees; common fund theory)
- Peterson, 561 N.W.2d 618 (ND: 1997) (fees must be for benefit of the estate, not personal gain; good-faith standard)
- Frandson, 383 N.W.2d 807 (ND: 1986) (funeral/medical expenses require timely creditor claims; no automatic trust payment)
- Wicklund, 2012 ND 29 (ND: 2012) (reiterates testamentary intent and trust construction for lifetime benefit of spouse)
- Steen v. Berg, 713 N.W.2d 87 (ND: 2006) (creditor claims/estate administration principles in relation to distributions)
- Riverwood Commercial Park, LLC, 729 N.W.2d 101 (ND: 2007) (law-of-the-case concept in sequential appellate rulings)