Brakke v. Bell State Bank & Trust

2017 ND 34 · Supreme Court of North Dakota · February 23, 2017 · No. No. 20160045

Summary

The North Dakota Supreme Court affirmed approval of a settlement resolving Timothy Brakke’s challenge to Bradley Brakke’s capacity to create a trust. The court held that the Uniform Probate Code provisions governing compromises in probate proceedings applied to a judicial settlement involving a challenge to the trust’s validity, rather than the Uniform Trust Code’s nonjudicial settlement provisions. The court concluded the challenge was brought in good faith and that the settlement was just and reasonable.

Holdings

  1. N.D.C.C. §§ 30.1-22-01 and 30.1-22-02 authorize court approval of a settlement resolving litigation that challenges a settlor's capacity to create a trust. N.D.C.C. § 59-09-11 does not govern a settlement presented in an ongoing judicial proceeding of that kind.
  2. A court may approve a family settlement when the underlying challenge to the governing instrument is a genuine, good-faith controversy; the court need not decide the ultimate merits of the challenge.
  3. A settlement may be just and reasonable when approval is necessary to prevent dissipation of estate assets through further litigation and protect the beneficiaries' interests.
  4. The district court properly approved the settlement without Vicki Brakke's signature because the settlement affected only residuary distributions after her life estate ended and did not affect her beneficial interest.

Questions Presented

  1. Whether North Dakota's Uniform Probate Code provisions governing court-approved compromises apply to a settlement in a judicial proceeding challenging the settlor's capacity to create a trust.
  2. Whether the settlement satisfied the statutory requirements that the controversy be in good faith, the agreement be just and reasonable, and the affected competent beneficiaries consent.
  3. Whether the district court properly approved the settlement without Vicki Brakke's signature when the settlement affected only residuary distributions after expiration of her life estate.

Disposition

affirmed

Cases Cited (14)

  • Hector v. City of Fargo, 2012 ND 80, ¶ 30, 815 N.W.2d 240(followed)
  • Amerada Hess Corp. v. State ex rel. Tax Comm'r, 2005 ND 155, ¶ 12, 704 N.W.2d 8(followed)
  • In re Estate of Allmaras, 2007 ND 130, ¶ 13, 737 N.W.2d 612(followed)
  • In re Estate of Gleeson, 2002 ND 211, ¶ 7, 655 N.W.2d 69(followed)
  • Erickson v. Olsen, 2014 ND 66, ¶ 20, 844 N.W.2d 585(followed)
  • Matter of Estate of Stanton, 472 N.W.2d 741, 745-46 (N.D. 1991)(followed)
  • In re Estate of Harms, 2012 ND 62, ¶ 12, 814 N.W.2d 783(followed)
  • Wilson v. Dallas, 743 S.E.2d 746, 758-67 (Ga. 2013)(persuasive)
  • In re Estate of Schroeder, 441 N.W.2d 527, 530, 533 (Minn. Ct. App. 1989)(persuasive)
  • Denny v. Deutsche Bank AG, 443 F.3d 253, 273 (2d Cir. 2006)(persuasive)

Showing top 10 of 14.

Cited In (0)

No citing cases on record yet.

Court Document

Open PDF
Loading document…