North Dakota Probate Settlement Agreements

Private agreements between contending parties in probate matters which result in the settlement of certain distribution issues  – North Dakota Probate Settlement Agreements – are favored by the courts in North Dakota.

 N.D.C.C. Section 30.1-20-12

Photo of County Courthouse - North Dakota Probate Settlement Agreements - Gary C. Dahle, Attorney at Law

Rights and Duties of Parties to the Agreement

N.D.C.C. Section 30.1-20-12 identifies that with a few limitations, the decedent’s successors can alter the shares of the estate to which they would otherwise be entitled by either the Decedent’s Will, or the laws of intestate succession, pursuant to North Dakota Probate Settlement Agreements, by providing in part as follows:

Subject to the rights of creditors and taxing authorities, competent successors may agree among themselves to alter the interests, shares, or amounts to which they are entitled under the will of the decedent, or under the laws of intestacy, in any way that they provide in a written contract executed by all who are affected by its provisions.

Duties of the Personal Representative

N.D.C.C. Section 30.1-20-12 also identifies that if the decedent’s successors enter into one or more written contracts regarding estate distribution issues in North Dakota Probate Settlement Agreements, the personal representative is required to implement the terms of such agreements – subject to a few limitations – by providing in part as follows:

The personal representative shall abide by the terms of the agreement subject to the personal representative’s obligation to administer the estate for the benefit of creditors, to pay all taxes and costs of administration, and to carry out the responsibilities of the personal representative’s office for the benefit of any successors of the decedent who are not parties.

 N.D.C.C. Section 30.1-22-01

Court Approval of Private Distribution Agreements

N.D.C.C. Section 30.1-22-01 identifies that subject to a few limitations, the probate court can officially sanction a compromise of any controversy settled between contending parties in a probate matter in North Dakota Probate Settlement Agreements, by providing in part as follows:

A compromise of any controversy as to

  • admission to probate of any instrument offered for formal probate as the will of a decedent,
  • the construction, validity, or effect of any governing instrument,
  • the rights or interests in the estate of the decedent, of any successor,

or

  • the administration of the estate,

if approved in a formal proceeding in the court for that purpose, is binding on all the parties thereto, including those unborn, unascertained, or who could not be located.

Estate of Dionne (III) – 2013 ND 40

Estate of Dionne (II) – 2011 ND 97

Estate of Dionne (I) – 2009 ND 172

In the Estate of Ardis Dionne – a series of three decisions involving the same parties issued by the North Dakota Supreme Court between 2009 and 2013 – the Supreme Court confirmed rulings made in prior North Dakota Supreme Court decisions that private settlement agreements between contending parties in probate matters are generally favored by the courts:

 [¶13]    “It is a well-settled principle of law that, when free from fraud and misrepresentations, courts will look with favor upon family agreements in settlement of estates.”

 Estate of Dionne (III) – 2013 ND 40; 827 NW 2d 555, 559, citing Johnson v. Tomlinson, 160 N.W.2d 49, 57 (N.D. 1968).

 “The North Dakota Uniform Probate Code

  • makes certain agreements among successors binding on an estate’s personal representative

and

  • provides a procedure for making compromise agreements binding by securing court approval.”

Estate of Dionne (III) – 2013 ND 40;  827 NW 2d 555, 559, citing In re Estate of Harms, 2012 ND 62, 12, 814 N.W.2d 783.

The District Court

In the Estate of Ardis Dionne, the District Court approved a settlement agreement made between parties interested in the estate, even though:

  •  the agreement on its face was completely one sided,

and

  • the parties giving up all of their rights in the agreement claimed that they did not realize the consequences of what they had signed.

According to the 2013 Dionne III decision, the private settlement agreement took the form of a deed, which contained the following provisions:

 That the personal representative shall deal with the assets of the estate and distribute the estate in the following manner:

  1. The estate’s interest in all of the above described real estate shall be conveyed to Norman Dionne for $1.00.
  2. 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 Norman for maintenance, 4/25/02.

See Estate of Dionne (III) – 2013 ND 40; 827 NW 2d 555, 557

The deed, was signed by the sole Will devisee, and by all of the decedent’s children.

See Estate of Dionne (III) – 2013 ND 40.

North Dakota Probate Settlement Agreements – The Supreme Court – 2009

In 2009, the North Dakota Supreme Court determined that the “deed” was ambiguous – and therefore inappropriate for summary judgment – and remanded the case back to the District Court to make certain findings regarding the private settlement agreement.

 See Estate of Dionne (I) – 2009 ND 172; 722 NW 2d , 891, 896.

After a trial, the District Court reached the same conclusion that it had reached the first time – finding that the deed, the private settlement agreement – was effective for its intended purposes.

 See Estate of Dionne (II) – 2011 ND 97.

North Dakota Probate Settlement Agreements – The Supreme Court – 2011

On appeal in 2011, the North Dakota Supreme Court upheld the remanded decision of the District Court.

 See Estate of Dionne (II) – 2011 ND 97.

North Dakota Probate Settlement Agreements – The Supreme Court – 2013

After failing to get relief from the Supreme Court in 2011, the losing parties then filed a new petition in the District Court, claiming fraud on behalf of their sibling who prevailed in the initial action.

However, neither the District Court, nor the Supreme Court upon appeal, thought much of the attempt and denied the petition – leaving the losing parties without a remedy – notwithstanding the one-sidedness of the original private settlement agreement.

 See Estate of Dionne (III) – 2013 ND 40; 827 NW 2d 555, 559.0

 Estate of Edith Harms;

(McNamara v. Feist)

2012 ND 62; 814 NW2d 783

In the Estate of Edith Harms – a 2012 decision – the North Dakota Supreme Court again confirmed the validity of private settlement agreements between contending parties in probate matters:

The North Dakota Uniform Probate Code makes certain agreements among successors binding on an estate’s personal representative and provides a procedure for making compromise agreements binding by securing court approval.

Estate of Edith Harms – 2012 ND 62; citing N.D.C.C. §§ 30.1-20-12 and 30.1-22-01 to 30.1-22-02.

Our law recognizes the contractual nature of certain agreements settling estate disputes between family members.

Estate of Edith Harms – 2012 ND 62; citing Johnson v. Tomlinson, 160 N.W.2d 49 (N.D. 1968); Muller v. Sprenger, 105 N.W.2d 433 (N.D. 1960); Zimmerman v. Kitzan, 65 N.W.2d 462 (N.D. 1954); Muhlhauser v. Becker, 76 N.D. 402, 37 N.W.2d 352 (1948).

Brigham Oil and Gas v. Lario

2011 ND 154; 801 NW2d 677

North Dakota Probate Settlement Agreements

In Brigham Oil and Gas v. Lario – a 2011 decision – the North Dakota Supreme Court confirmed the ruling made in Estate of Dionne (I) regarding the validity of private settlement agreements between contending parties in a probate matter:

A decedent’s successors may agree in a written contract executed by all who are affected by its provisions to alter the interests to which they are entitled under a will, and the personal representative shall abide by the terms of the agreement.

Brigham Oil and Gas v. Lario, 2011 ND 154 [18], 801 NW2d 677, 684, citing Estate of Dionne (I) – 2009 ND 172 and N.D.C.C. § 30.1-20-12.

Court Approval of North Dakota Probate Settlement Agreements

In the same decision – the North Dakota Supreme Court also confirmed the role of the courts in enforcing private settlement agreements between contending parties in a probate matter:

 Section 30.1-22-01 (U.P.C. § 3-1101), N.D.C.C., further provides:

A compromise of any controversy as to admission to probate of any instrument offered for formal probate as the will of a decedent, the construction, validity, or effect of any governing instrument, the rights or interests in the estate of the decedent, of any successor, or the administration of the estate, if approved in a formal proceeding in the court for that purpose, is binding on all the parties thereto, including those unborn, unascertained, or who could not be located.

 Brigham Oil and Gas v. Lario, 2011 ND 154 [18], 801 NW2d 677, 684, citing N.D.C.C. Section 30.1-22-01

Statutory Notice Requirements – North Dakota Probate Settlement Agreements

In the Brigham Oil and Gas v. Lario decision, the North Dakota Supreme Court identified the statutory notice requirements for any court approved settlement:

All interested persons or their representatives must be given notice of a proposed compromise.

Brigham Oil and Gas v. Lario, 2011 ND 154 [18], 801 NW2d 677, 684, citing N.D.C.C. § 30.1-22-02(3) (U.P.C. § 3-1102); see generally Estate of Hedstrom, 472 N.W.2d 454, 456 (N.D. 1991).

These statutes are corollaries to the general principle that an agreement to alter parties’ interests in property are not binding upon subsequent good faith purchasers or mortgagees who have no actual or constructive notice of the agreement.

Brigham Oil and Gas v. Lario, 2011 ND 154 [18], 801 NW2d 677, 684, citing Marsh v. Binstock, 462 N.W.2d 172, 175 n.2 (N.D. 1990); Lundgren v. Mohagen, 426 N.W.2d 563, 565 (N.D. 1988); Burlington N. R.R. Co., Inc. v. Scheid, 398 N.W.2d 114, 119 (N.D. 1986).

Limited Application of North Dakota Probate Settlement Agreements

The North Dakota Supreme Court also identified that persons who are not parties to North Dakota Probate Settlement Agreements are not affected by it:

“A settlement determining property disputes cannot stand . . . if rights of persons not parties to the settlement are affected.”

Brigham Oil and Gas v. Lario, 2011 ND 154 [18], 801 NW2d 677, 684, citing M. Cross., Annot., Family settlement of testator’s estate, 29 A.L.R. 3d 8, 52 (1970).

North Dakota Probate Settlement Agreements

 Conclusion

Private North Dakota Probate Settlement Agreements between contending parties in estates which result in the settlement of certain distribution issues are favored by the courts in North Dakota, providing they meet the procedural requirements of:

and

Whether you reside in North Dakota, California, Minnesota, or any other state, if you had a relative who died owning mineral rights in North Dakota which have not yet been properly settled, contact Minnesota and North Dakota probate attorney Gary C. Dahle, at 763-780-8390, or gary@dahlelaw.com.

Copyright 2022 – All Rights Reserved

Gary C. Dahle
Attorney at Law
2704 Mounds View Blvd.
Mounds View, MN 55112

Phone: 763-780-8390   Fax:     763-780-1735     gary@dahlelaw.com

Licensed in Minnesota and North Dakota

Gary C. Dahle has represented clients from the countries of Canada, Norway, and Sweden, and the states of Alabama, Arizona, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Florida, Idaho, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Louisiana, Maine, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, Montana, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon, Tennessee, Texas, Virginia, Washington, and Wisconsin in the United States, with respect to North Dakota mineral rights and probate issues in various North Dakota Counties.

http://www.legis.nd.gov/general-information/north-dakota-century-code

Legal Disclaimer

Information provided herein is only for general informational and educational purposes.

Minnesota and North Dakota attorney Gary C. Dahle does not represent oil companies – only owners of North Dakota mineral and royalty interests, and is currently accepting new clients.

Gary C. Dahle has represented clients from Alabama, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Florida, Indiana, Louisiana, Maine, Michigan, Minnesota, New York, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon, Texas, Virginia, and Washington with respect to North Dakota mineral rights probate issues in various North Dakota Counties.

Attorneys not licensed in North Dakota are invited to refer possible North Dakota probate issues to Minnesota and North Dakota attorney Gary C. Dahle, at 763-780-8390, or gary@dahlelaw.com.

Topics of Interest – North Dakota Ancillary Probate

Topics of Interest – North Dakota Intestate Succession.

Topics of Interest – North Dakota Inheritance Laws

Topics of Interest – North Dakota Intestate Estate

Topics of Interest – North Dakota Foreign Personal Representative

Topics of Interest – North Dakota Subsequent Administration

Topics of Interest – North Dakota Mineral Rights.

Topics of Interest – North Dakota Transfer on Death Deeds

Topics of Interest – North Dakota Affidavits of Heirship

Topics of Interest – North Dakota Informal Probate

Topics of Interest – North Dakota Formal Probate

Topics of Interest – Probating a Will Copy in North Dakota

Topics of Interest – North Dakota Probate Closing

Topics of Interest – Newly Discovered North Dakota Property

Topics of Interest – North Dakota Joint Tenancy

Topics of Interest – North Dakota Mineral Rights Purchase Offers

Related issues – see Minnesota Probate.