Court Opinion

ID: 9515366
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-06 22:56:05.146652+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:06:28.679954
License: Public Domain

SABERS, Justice
(dissenting).
[¶ 24.] I would affirm the circuit court’s award of interest to Delbert because the decision was res judicata as the circuit court determined, or controlled by the doctrine of the “law of the case.” As stated in the majority opinion:
The “law of the case” doctrine is intended to afford a measure of finality to litigated issues. It is a rule of practice and procedure which for policy reasons provides that once an issue is litigated and decided it should remain settled for all subsequent states of the litigation.
Western States Land & Cattle Co., 459 N.W.2d at 435.
[¶ 25.] I would order the apportionment of the refund of $75,525 which resulted from the over valuation of Delbert’s land as affirmed in Siebrasse III. I would reject the after the fact revaluation based on the “increased deductions” for legal fees and administrative expenses allegedly *92incurred by the estate in fighting the correct valuation, which was sound.
[¶ 26.] I would reverse the circuit court’s denial of attorney’s fees, disbursements and expenses to Delbert because Delbert’s efforts clearly benefited the estate and without his efforts, the estate would have obtained no relief.
[¶ 27.] Further, I would do this by order as too much has already been written on this case.