Court: North Dakota Supreme Court; October 24, 2008; North Dakota; State Supreme Court
Opal Myrvik, representing Ernest Samuelson's estate, and the Ljunggren family appeal a district court decision regarding the intestate distribution of Samuelson's estate. The court ruled that intestate succession applies, meaning Amanda West and Robin West, granddaughters of Samuelson's half-sister, are entitled to the estate. Ernest Samuelson had executed a will in 1993, leaving his estate to his mother, Huida Samuelson, and explicitly excluding his half-sister, Eleanor West. Upon Samuelson's death in 2005, he had no surviving spouse or children, and both his mother and half-sister predeceased him. The Ljunggren family, claiming rights as Huida’s heirs, contended they should inherit per his will. However, the court found that since Huida predeceased Samuelson and the will lacked a provision for such circumstances, intestate laws govern the estate's distribution. The court clarified that the will's exclusion of Eleanor West did not extend to her descendants, thereby affirming that Amanda and Robin West were the rightful heirs. The Ljunggren family subsequently filed an appeal.
The Ljunggren family contends that Ernest Samuelson’s intent to exclude Eleanor West from his will also prevents her heirs from inheriting. In contrast, Amanda West and Robin West argue that the district court correctly applied intestacy laws, affirming that Samuelson's exclusion of Eleanor does not extend to them. Samuelson's will designated the residue of his estate to his mother, Huida Samuelson, who predeceased him without a provision addressing this scenario. North Dakota’s antilapse statute applies only if a deceased devisee has surviving descendants, which Huida did not, as her only issue was Samuelson himself. Consequently, the antilapse statute does not apply, leaving the residue of Samuelson’s estate to be distributed according to intestate succession laws, specifically N.D.C.C. 30.1-04-01(1).
Since Samuelson had no surviving spouse or descendants, his estate passes to his surviving parents, both of whom he outlived. Amanda and Robin West, as descendants of his father, Harry Samuelson, are therefore entitled to his intestate estate. The critical issue is whether Samuelson’s will effectively excludes Amanda and Robin from inheriting this estate. Paragraph V of his will explicitly states that he intentionally excluded Eleanor West, a provision allowed under North Dakota’s negative will statute. The district court found ambiguity in this paragraph regarding Samuelson's intent to exclude Eleanor from either his will or intestate succession. However, the interpretation of statutes and the determination of ambiguities in wills are legal questions not bound by the district court's findings, allowing for independent judicial review.
Section 30.1-04-01(1), N.D.C.C., states that any part of a decedent's estate not disposed of by will passes to the heirs by intestate succession, unless modified by the will. The statute does not require a testator to clarify whether an exclusion from the will applies to just testate distribution or both testate and intestate distribution. This statute aligns with section 2-101 of the 1990 Uniform Probate Code, and interpretations from other jurisdictions can provide guidance.
No case law has been identified addressing whether a testator needs to specify the scope of an exclusion. The plain language of the statute suggests that when a testator excludes someone in the will, that individual is excluded from both forms of distribution unless stated otherwise. Therefore, Ernest Samuelson's will effectively excluded Eleanor West from both testate and intestate succession.
The Ljunggren family argues that this exclusion extends to Eleanor West's heirs, Amanda West and Robin West, implying that Samuelson intended to exclude them as well, given their status as strangers. However, Amanda and Robin West contend that the exclusion applies solely to Eleanor West. Any inference about Samuelson's knowledge of his potential heirs is deemed irrelevant, as extrinsic evidence can only clarify the testator's expressed intentions, not imply additional intentions.
Chapter 30.1-04, N.D.C.C. does not define "class," and the court has not previously established a definition. In a related case, Luke v. Stevenson, the South Dakota Supreme Court emphasized that gifts made to individuals named and described by relationship are considered individual gifts unless indicated otherwise. According to N.D.C.C. 30.1-04-01(2), a decedent can expressly exclude individuals or classes from inheriting property, but such exclusions must be clear and cannot be inferred. Since Ernest Samuelson did not explicitly exclude Eleanor West’s heirs, the court concluded that he did not intend to disinherit them.
The statute also clarifies that if an individual is excluded but survives the decedent, their heirs are not automatically disqualified from inheriting. The official comment from the Uniform Probate Code supports this interpretation, stating that the share of a disinherited individual passes as if they had disclaimed it. Consequently, if Eleanor West had disclaimed her interest, her heirs, Amanda West and Robin West, would inherit the remainder of Samuelson’s estate.
The court also referenced an illustrative example from the Uniform Probate Code, which mirrors the current case, reinforcing that the exclusion of an individual results in their share passing to their descendants. After considering all arguments from the Ljunggren family, the court affirmed the district court's order that Amanda West and Robin West are entitled to the remainder of Samuelson's estate. The decision was concurred by Chief Justice Gerald W. VandeWalle and Justices Dale V. Sandstrom, Daniel J. Crothers, and Mary Muehlen Maring.
