In the Matter of the Estate of Ruth Finstrom, Deceased

Summary

The North Dakota Supreme Court affirmed orders and a judgment concerning claims arising from the estate of Ruth Finstrom. The court upheld the validity of Ruth Finstrom’s 2015 will, rejected claims that real-property conveyances resulted from undue influence or unjust enrichment, and affirmed the denial of Joel Finstrom’s claimed property interest and Annette Hauser’s petition for formal probate of the 2011 will. The court also held that Joel’s property-interest claim was properly tried by consent and that res judicata barred its subsequent relitigation.

Holdings

1. The district court did not clearly err in finding that Daniel and Teresa Finstrom did not have a confidential relationship with Ruth Finstrom and did not unduly influence her execution of the 2012 contract for deed.
2. The district court correctly concluded that Daniel and Teresa Finstrom were not unjustly enriched.
3. The district court properly admitted testimony about prior oral agreements relating to the property because the testimony explained the circumstances and inducement for the written contract rather than adding to or varying its terms.
4. Joel Finstrom's claim to an interest in Ruth Finstrom's property was properly before the district court because the parties tried the issue by express or implied consent under N.D.R.Civ.P. 15(b)(2).
5. The 2011 wills did not create an express trust for Joel Finstrom, and Joel failed to establish a resulting or constructive trust by clear and convincing evidence.
6. Res judicata barred Joel Finstrom from relitigating his claim to an interest in Ruth Finstrom's property because the claim was tried and decided in the prior proceeding.
7. The district court properly determined that Ruth Finstrom's 2015 will was valid and that res judicata barred Annette Hauser's later petition for formal probate of the 2011 will.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the district court clearly erred in finding Daniel and Teresa Finstrom did not have a confidential relationship with Ruth Finstrom and did not unduly influence her into executing the 2012 contract for deed.
2. Whether Daniel and Teresa Finstrom were unjustly enriched by the property transaction.
3. Whether the district court improperly admitted parol evidence concerning prior oral agreements related to the contract for deed.
4. Whether Joel Finstrom's claim to an interest in estate property was properly before the district court through trial by consent.
5. Whether Ruth and Carl Finstrom's 2011 wills created an express or implied trust for Joel Finstrom.
6. Whether res judicata barred Joel Finstrom's renewed property claim and Annette Hauser's petition for formal probate of the 2011 will.
7. Whether the evidence established that Ruth Finstrom lacked testamentary capacity when she executed the 2015 will.

Disposition

affirmed