Zundel v. Zundel, 945 N.W.2d 297

Stephen Zundel obtained a May 2013 bill of transfer purporting to convey substantial personal property from his father, Edwin, to Stephen. Loren served as personal representative and the brothers claimed the property belonged to Edwin’s estate.
Loren and Richard challenged the transfer, alleging Stephen secured Edwin’s signature through undue influence and that the document was not properly notarized.
The district court held a bench trial (May 2, 2019) and found (1) a confidential relationship existed, (2) Stephen exercised undue influence over Edwin, and (3) the bill of transfer was not properly accepted because it lacked a valid notary signature — declaring the transfer void.
Post-judgment, Stephen served a subpoena on Edwin’s nursing home for records about alleged bruising; the district court quashed the subpoena as improper because discovery had closed and the case was decided.
On appeal Stephen argued judicial bias, challenged the undue-influence finding, objected to hearsay admission of Edwin’s statements, and contested the quashing of the subpoena; the Supreme Court affirmed the district court on all issues.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Judicial bias	Judge Narum’s prior recusal in related matter shows bias here	No bias; parties declined to seek recusal at hearing	Not raised below; appellate review barred; claim declined
Undue influence over Edwin	Stephen: findings are clearly erroneous; he did not unduly influence Edwin	Loren/Richard: evidence shows confidential relationship, opportunity, disposition, and result from undue influence	Affirmed: presumption applied; district court’s factual findings not clearly erroneous; transfer void
Admission of Edwin’s statements ("I don’t know", "should be divided equally")	Statements were inadmissible hearsay used for truth	Admitted under state-of-mind exception; even if error, other competent evidence supports judgment	Even assuming error, harmless in nonjury bench trial; judgment supported by other evidence
Post-trial subpoena to nursing home	Rule 45 permits subpoena; records needed to investigate alleged bruising	Discovery closed; subpoena issued after deadline and after judgment — improper	Quash affirmed: district court did not abuse discretion; discovery deadline lapsed and case was decided

Riskey v. Riskey, 2018 ND 214, 917 N.W.2d 488 (rebuttable presumption of undue influence in confidential relationships)
Molitor v. Molitor, 2006 ND 163, 718 N.W.2d 13 (issues not raised in trial court cannot be raised on appeal)
Wheeler v. Southport Seven Planned Unit Dev., 2012 ND 201, 821 N.W.2d 746 (clearly erroneous standard for bench-trial findings)
Schumacker v. Schumacker, 2011 ND 75, 796 N.W.2d 636 (state-of-mind hearsay exception and its limits)
Tallackson Potato Co. v. MTK Potato Co., 278 N.W.2d 417 (N.D. 1979) (in nonjury trials, admission of incompetent evidence is not reversible error where competent evidence supports judgment)