Estate of Pedro v. Scheeler
Decision Date | 18 December 2014 |
Docket Number | No. 20140074.,20140074. |
Parties | ESTATE OF Margaret B. PEDRO, Deceased Jack Scheeler, Petitioner and Appellee v. Daniel SCHEELER, Lawrence Scheeler, Jr., Yvonne Fladeland, Nancy Schaffer, Denan Burke, Respondents. Daniel Scheeler, Appellant. |
Court | North Dakota Supreme Court |
Casey Kostelecky, 38 2nd Avenue East, Dickinson, N.D. 58601, for petitioner and appellee; submitted on brief.
Daniel Scheeler, 3120 West Carefree Highway # 314, Phoenix, Ariz. 85086–3202, appellant; on brief.
[¶ 1] Daniel Scheeler appeals from a district court order denying his motion for a supplementary inventory of the Estate of Margaret B. Pedro (“Estate”), awarding attorney fees to the Estate's personal representative's law firm and barring him from further filings in this matter. We affirm.
[¶ 2] Margaret Pedro was domiciled in Nevada and died in 1997. In March 1999, one of Pedro's children, Jack Scheeler, filed an application in the North Dakota district court, seeking informal probate of Margaret Pedro's will and appointment as personal representative, in addition to filing Pedro's 1990 Last Will and Testament. Letters testamentary were issued on March 18, 1999, appointing Jack Scheeler as the Estate's personal representative. No subsequent inventory or closing documents have been filed.
[¶ 3] In August 2011, Daniel Scheeler, another child of Pedro, petitioned the district court for a hearing and for an order restraining the personal representative. Daniel Scheeler thereafter retained counsel and joined in a motion with Jack Scheeler and Denan Pedro, another of Margaret Pedro's children, seeking a declaratory judgment regarding the proper interpretation of the will. The parties stipulated to waive a hearing, and in July 2012 the court entered an order and judgment construing the will and concluding Denan Pedro inherited the entire Estate. No appeal was taken from the July 2012 judgment. Daniel Scheeler continued self-represented to file voluminous documents in the district court, including letters with attachments, a purported inventory and appraisement and purported supplementary inventory information with attachments.
[¶ 4] In November 2013, Daniel Scheeler moved the district court to order the Estate's personal representative to file a supplementary inventory. The personal representative responded by arguing Daniel Scheeler's motion did not comply with North Dakota court rules, was barred by res judicata and was frivolous.
[¶ 5] In December 2013, the district court denied Daniel Scheeler's motion, holding his filing failed to meet basic requirements for a motion under North Dakota law, was frivolous and was an attempt to relitigate an issue previously decided. The court also awarded attorney fees for the personal representative having to defend the frivolous motion and barred Daniel Scheeler from filing anything further in the case.
[¶ 6] Daniel Scheeler argues the primary issue on appeal is that the district court erred in denying his request to order the personal representative to file a supplementary inventory for the Estate. We conclude the dispositive issue is whether Daniel Scheeler established any legal grounds for the relief sought in his motion.
[¶ 7] A personal representative has certain duties regarding an inventory and appraisement:
N.D.C.C. § 30.1–18–06 (emphasis added). Regarding the personal representative's duty to provide a supplementary inventory, N.D.C.C. § 30.1–18–08 provides:
“If any property not included in the original inventory comes to the knowledge of a personal representative or if the personal representative learns that the value or description indicated in the original inventory for any item is erroneous or misleading, the personal representative shall make a supplementary inventory or appraisement showing the market value as of the date of the decedent's death of the new item or the revised market value or descriptions, and the appraisers or other data relied upon, if any, and file it with the court if the original inventory was filed, or furnish copies thereof or information thereof to persons interested in the new information. ”
(Emphasis added.) These statutes make clear a personal representative has certain ongoing duties regarding the inventory and appraisement, and N.D.C.C. § 30.1–18–06 provides two ways in which a personal representative may handle an inventory.
[¶ 8] Although Daniel Scheeler brought a motion requesting the district court order the personal representative to file a supplemental inventory, it is unclear what authority Daniel Scheeler relied on to support his request. Regarding any alleged breach of a duty to provide an inventory, the Editorial Board Comment to N.D.C.C. § 30.1–18–06 (U.P.C. 3–706 ), explains:
50 N.D.L.Rev. 593, 601 (1973–1974) () .
[¶ 9] An “[i]nterested person” includes “heirs, devisees, children, spouses, creditors, beneficiaries, and any others having a property right in or claim against a trust estate or the estate of a decedent, ward, or protected person.” N.D.C.C. § 30.1–01–06(25) (emphasis added). ”Id. (emphasis added). The statutory definition is broad enough to include petitioners who at least have a claim that may be affected by the probate of an estate. See, e.g., Jordan v. Anderson, 421 N.W.2d 816, 818 (N.D.1988) ; see also In re Estate of Richmond, 2005 ND 145, ¶ 9, 701 N.W.2d 897. However, courts also have held, an heir is no longer an “interested person” when that person ceases having a property right in or claim against a trust estate or the estate of a decedent. See, e.g., In the Matter of the Estate of Miles v. Miles, 2000 MT 41, ¶¶ 44–46, 298 Mont. 312, 994 P.2d 1139 ; Seymour v. Biehslich, 371 Ark. 359, 266 S.W.3d 722, 729 (2007).
[¶ 10] In its July 2012 judgment, the district court construed the will and concluded Denan Pedro inherited the entire Estate. Daniel Scheeler did not appeal the court's decision and thus is bound by the judgment. See Matter of Estate of Hoffas, 422 N.W.2d 391, 395 (N.D.1988) ( ). “The doctrines of res judicata and collateral estoppel bar courts from relitigating claims and issues in order to promote the finality of judgments, which increases certainty, avoids multiple litigation, wasteful delay and expense, and ultimately conserves judicial resources.” Holkesvig v. Grove, 2014 ND 57, ¶ 11, 844 N.W.2d 557 (quoting Ungar v. N.D. State Univ., 2006 ND 185, ¶ 10, 721 N.W.2d 16 ). “Whether res judicata or collateral estoppel applies [is] a question of law, which is fully reviewable on appeal.” Holkesvig, at ¶ 11.
[¶ 11] Here, after the district court's July 2012 judgment, Daniel Scheeler continued to file voluminous material with the district court, submitting additional facts and allegations and culminating in...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Rath v. Rath
...v. Cass Cty., 2008 ND 149, ¶ 9, 753 N.W.2d 872. However, as this Court explained in Estate of Pedro v. Scheeler, 2014 ND 237, ¶ 14, 856 N.W.2d 775 :The district court has authority to stem abuses of the judicial process, which comes not only from applicable rules and statutes, such as N.D.R......
-
Serv. Oil, Inc. v. Gjestvang
...single or double costs, including reasonable attorney's fees, if an appeal is frivolous.” Estate of Pedro v. Scheeler, 2014 ND 237, ¶ 17, 856 N.W.2d 775 (citation and quotation marks omitted). “An appeal is frivolous if it is flagrantly groundless, devoid of merit, or demonstrates persisten......
-
Rath v. Rath
...would render a judgment in that person’s favor." Estate of Dion , 2001 ND 53, ¶ 46, 623 N.W.2d 720. Estate of Pedro , 2014 ND 237, ¶ 14, 856 N.W.2d 775. The district court has previously warned Mark Rath of the consequences under N.D.R.Civ.P. 11 for filing frivolous litigation. See Rath , 2......
-
Brossart v. Janke
...must award attorney fees." Rath v. Rath , 2016 ND 46, ¶ 26, 876 N.W.2d 474 (quoting Estate of Pedro v. Scheeler , 2014 ND 237, ¶ 14, 856 N.W.2d 775 ). A claim is frivolous "if there is such a complete absence of actual facts or law that a reasonable person could not have thought a court wou......