Court Opinion

ID: 9735299
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 18:08:29.251241+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:26:57.050831
License: Public Domain

VERNON R. PEDERSON, Surrogate Judge,
dissenting.
The majority opinion, by adopting a generous view of the statute which grants conservators their authority, has provided for the future an easy remedy for persons that hereafter wish to surreptitiously challenge the validity of a will. The words “except the power to make a will” are not words that grant authority but show a restriction thereof. They should be construed in the light of our long-standing tradition of treating wills with appropriate respect. See, e.g., Tooz v. Tooz, 78 N.D. 432, 50 N.W.2d 61 (1951); Stormon v. Weiss, 65 N.W.2d 475 (N.D.1954); Bender v. Bender, 72 N.W.2d 220 (N.D.1955); Hoppin v. Fortin, 111 N.W.2d 122 (N.D.1961); Boone v. Estate of Nelson, 264 N.W.2d 881 (N.D.1978); In re Estate of Nelson, 281 N.W.2d 245 (N.D.1979); In re Estate of Thomas, 290 N.W.2d 223 (N.D.1980); In re Estate of Polda, 349 N.W.2d 11 (N.D.1984); In re Estate of Papineau, 396 N.W.2d 735 (N.D.1986); In re Estate of Ambers, 477 N.W.2d 218 (N.D.1991); In re Estate of Otto, 494 N.W.2d 169 (N.D.1992) In re Estate of Ketterling, 515 N.W.2d 158 (N.D.1994).
It is entirely immaterial to the issues in this case whether or not the conservator found a better and more effective way to get the Sickles brothers’ assets delivered to the Larimore-based performing arts activities and whether or not attorney Oliver “appears to be upset ... because it relieves him of any future legal work.”
Wills, throughout the country, that were a lot stranger and more questionable than the wills of the Sickles brothers have been consistently protected by the courts from the efforts of “do-gooders” who think they can do better.
The Sickles brothers and their longtime friend and attorney, Ralph Oliver, obviously were not the first people in Grand Forks County to think that a foundation can serve as a significant, prominent and permanent memorial. They undoubtedly knew about In re Myra Foundation, 112 N.W.2d 552 (N.D.1961).
I would reverse and remand for fulfillment of the intent of the Sickles brothers, as clear*682ly spelled out in their wills, unless there is an appropriate challenge of the validity of the wills, and evidence is produced that one of the appropriate grounds for a challenge exists.