Court Opinion

ID: 9843833
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-24 02:43:45.064033+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:15:14.385585
License: Public Domain

SANDSTROM, Justice,
dissenting.
[¶ 22] Under the terms of Ardis Dionne’s one-page handwritten will, she left her entire estate to James Goodness. Her will left absolutely nothing to those involved in this action. A document signed by James Goodness, Norman Dionne, and Norman Dionne’s five siblings had the effect — as ruled by the district court — of transferring the Mountrail County real estate to Norman Dionne in 2002. Seven years later — after the onslaught of intense oil-drilling activity in Mountrail County-two of the siblings brought this action seeking to void the transfer to Norman *897Dionne. Neither James Goodness nor the other siblings joined in the action.
[¶ 23] Paragraph four of the signed agreement provided in relevant part:
That the personal representative shall deal with the assets of the estate and distribute the estate in the following manner:
a. The estate’s interest in all of the above described real estate shall be conveyed to Norman Dionne for $ 1.00.
b. After paying administration expenses and creditor’s claims, if any, all of the remaining assets of the estate (including the proceeds from the sale of the land) shall be distributed to James Goodness. Norman for maintence [sic] 4/25/02.
(Strikeout and italicized language handwritten.)
[¶ 24] The district court found the language unambiguous.
[¶ 25] Since the will left all of the property to Goodness, he would have been free to do anything he wanted with it. The disputed document would have done nothing at all without Goodness’s signature, which turned it into a disclaiming of the bequest by Goodness. See N.D.C.C. §§ 30.1-10.1-02(1) (“A person may disclaim, in whole or in part, any interest in or power over property ....”) and 30.1-10.1-03(3) (“The disclaimed interest passes according to a provision in the instrument creating the interest providing for the disposition of the interest, should it be disclaimed, or of disclaimed interests in general.”) Without this disclaiming, there would have been nothing for the siblings to agree to because they were left nothing under the will. With the disclaiming, the siblings' — Ardis Dionne’s children — would become the heirs because the will contained no provision in case Goodness disclaimed. See N.D.C.C. § 30.1-09-05. With the document disclaiming, it would then also have the effect, under N.D.C.C. § 30.1-20-12, of an agreement among the heirs (who had nothing to agree to without Goodness’s signature).
[¶ 26] Long after the fact, two of the siblings, Cynthia Larson and Randall Dionne, making contradictory and facially false statements, sought to challenge the document and the transfer of the property under its terms.
[¶ 27] According to Larson, she and Norman Dionne and their sibling, Linda Lewis, met with Goodness in Hawaii, where they and Goodness executed the document. Of the four present, only Larson claims irregularity. The other disputant, Randall Dionne, was not present in Hawaii.
[¶ 28] In her brief, Larson asserts, “The parties dispute who was responsible for the language of the alternative agreements that were prepared by Attorney Aljets. (App. 66-68).” The cited references reflect no such dispute. Norman Dionne says it was Larson who asked Al-jets to prepare the alternative agreements to take to Goodness. Larson’s affidavit does not dispute that and, in fact, at ¶ 19, says, “Attorney Ajets drafted some sample Agreements and faxed them to me on September 4, 2001 shortly before our trip. There were three separate Agreements because we were not sure what Jim would agree to, if anything. Photocopies of the Agreements are attached hereto as Exhibit ‘C’.”
[¶ 29] In her affidavit, at ¶ 20, Larson claims, “I didn’t pay much attention to the legal descriptions in the three separate Agreements as I am not legally trained to read legal descriptions and there was no way to know what the legal description would be on the 12 acre farmstead until a survey was done on the property.” But other unexecuted agreements which Larson received from Ajets and attached to her affidavit plainly identified the 12-acre farmstead and treated it differently than *898the agreement executed. Paragraph four on one agreement said:
That the personal representative shall deal with the assets of the estate and distribute the estate in the following manner:
a. The estate’s interest in the farmstead located on Section 19-T152N-R90W consisting of the buildings, tree stand and approximately 12 acres shall be conveyed to Norman Dionne.
b. The estate’s interest in the balance of the real estate (other than the farmstead) shall be sold by the personal representative at its fair market value.
c. After paying administration expenses and creditor’s claims, if any, all of the remaining assets of the estate (including the proceeds from the sale of the land) shall be distributed to James Goodness.
(Emphasis added.) Paragraph four of the other agreement said:
That the personal representative shall deal with the assets of the estate and distribute the estate in the following manner:
a. The estate’s interest in the farmstead located on Section 19-T152N-R90W consisting of the buildings, tree stand and approximately 12 acres shall be conveyed to Norman Dionne for $-
b. The estate’s interest in the balance of the real estate (other than the farmstead) shall be sold by the personal representative at its fair market value.
c.After paying administration expenses and creditor’s claims, if any, all of the remaining assets of the estate (including the proceeds from the sale of the land) shall be distributed to James Goodness.
(Emphasis added.) Unlike the unexecuted agreements, the executed agreement says nothing about a “12 acre farmstead.”
[¶ 30] In her affidavit, at ¶ 24, Larson acknowledges that it was she who wrote the main handwritten revision on the executed agreement: “I remember writing the words on the Agreement, ‘Norman for maintenance 4/25/02’ .... ”
[¶ 31] I agree with the district court that the agreement is not ambiguous. James Goodness was to receive everything under the will. He could have accepted the inheritance and done whatever he chose with it. Instead, presented with three alternative documents, he chose to execute the one that disclaimed his interest and directed that all the real estate be sold to Norman Dionne for one dollar and then the one dollar be paid to Norman Dionne. I would affirm.
[¶ 32] DALE V. SANDSTROM