Opinion ID: 889205
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: Post Settlement Agreement

Text: ¶ 17 On August 27, 2007, the Grandchildren filed a motion in District Court to enforce the Agreement. The same day, the Estate filed motions to consolidate and order division, of the property. The parties had begun to interpret the document differently. Central to the dispute was whether the Grandchildren retained any ownership interests in the Burrell property, outside of the 40 acres granted by the Estate. On July 15, 2008, the Estate wrote a letter to the District Court, which explained that the time to finalize the Agreement had expired. The Estate suggested the document be set aside and attached a proposed order. ¶ 18 On July 25, 2008, the District Court issued an order interpreting the Agreement and found that the Grandchildren had acquired their 40 acres from the Estate in exchange for giving up all claims and interests in the rest of the Burrell property. Additionally, the District Court noted: It defies common sense and tortures the language of the Settlement Agreement to argue that after the years of litigation these parties have suffered and financed, they would settle their dispute in a global settlement that specifically refers to both cases, while leaving for another day the issue of Donald and Esther's ownership of the 26.7 acres within the 120 acre parcel. . . . With these parties unable to agree on anything, it is incomprehensible that the Estate would withdraw its appeal and enter a settlement that only kicked the can down the road until the next inevitable legal battle. The District Court also found that the Estate was entitled to attorney fees for successfully seeking enforcement of the Agreement. ¶ 19 On August 4, 2008, counsel for the Estate submitted an affidavit of attorney fees. The Grandchildren promptly filed a response, requesting that the District Court order the Estate to explain certain fees, and strike any fees unrelated to the enforcement of the Agreement. On August 21, 2008, counsel for the Estate filed a supplemental affidavit. The Grandchildren did not respond. In 2010, the Estate was awarded $11,130 in fees. ¶ 20 In March of 2009, the Estate filed an application to hold Donald Burrell in contempt for cutting and removing trees from the Burrell property. The parties had been ordered to not engage in any actions that altered the status quo of the property. In light of the poor relations between the parties, potential for increased animosity, and the inevitable fight over attorney fees that would ensue, the District Court denied the Estate's application. ¶ 21 On April 19, 2010, the District Court consolidated the will and partition actions, and divided the Burrell property. The Grandchildren were awarded 40 acres as tenants in common. The remaining 166.47 acres went to the Estate. The District Court made explicit that the Grandchildren had no ownership interests in the Estate's land, and the Estate had no ownership interest in the Grandchildren's land. The Grandchildren appealed, and the Estate cross-appealed.