In Re Estate of Richmond
2005 WL 1713869, 701 N.W.2d 897, 2005 ND 145 (2005)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
To defeat a motion for summary judgment on a claim that a testamentary devise was procured by fraud, the moving party must present evidence of sufficient quality and quantity for a rational fact-finder to find fraud by clear and convincing evidence. The mere absence of a document, such as a divorce decree, is insufficient on its own to create a genuine issue of material fact regarding fraudulent inducement.
Facts:
- Donald Richmond married Henrietta Bauts in 1943 and they separated in 1978 or 1979 without Donald being certain a divorce was finalized.
- Donald met Lois Bristol, a widow, in 1976 and they began a relationship.
- In January 1982, because Lois wanted to marry, she traveled to meet with Henrietta to confirm the status of Donald and Henrietta's marriage.
- Lois returned from the meeting and informed Donald that Henrietta had told her the divorce was complete and had shown her papers to that effect.
- Donald and Lois married in March 1982 and lived together for over 20 years.
- In 2001, Lois executed a will devising her home to "my husband Donald George Richmond" and the residue of her estate to her daughter, Karen Black.
- Lois died in 2003, after which Karen Black was unable to find official records of a divorce between Donald and Henrietta.
Procedural Posture:
- After Lois Richmond's death, Karen Black, as personal representative, filed an application for informal probate of Lois's will.
- Black subsequently filed a petition in trial court to contest the will, alleging the devise to Donald Richmond was the result of fraudulent misrepresentation regarding his marital status.
- Donald Richmond moved for summary judgment, seeking dismissal of Black's petition.
- The trial court granted Donald's motion for summary judgment, finding Black had failed to establish a genuine issue of material fact for fraud, and ordered the estate distributed per the will.
- Karen Black (appellant) appealed the trial court's judgment to the Supreme Court of North Dakota.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does the absence of a divorce decree, without more, create a genuine issue of material fact sufficient to support a claim that a devise in a will was procured by fraudulent misrepresentation?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice Kapsner
No, the absence of a divorce decree, by itself, does not create a genuine issue of material fact for fraudulent misrepresentation. To survive summary judgment on a fraud claim, which has a heightened 'clear and convincing' evidentiary standard, the non-moving party must present evidence of sufficient caliber to support their claim. Black failed to produce any evidence that Donald intended to deceive Lois or that Lois was actually misled; in fact, the evidence showed Lois took her own steps to verify the divorce. Furthermore, Black could not show that Lois would have changed her will even if she knew the marriage was invalid, given their 20-year relationship. Mere speculation and the lack of a document are insufficient to defeat summary judgment.
Dissenting - Chief Justice Vande Walle
Yes, this case should not have been decided on summary judgment. The undisputed facts, particularly the absence of any record of a divorce, create sufficient inferences of potential fraud to defeat a summary judgment motion. The case is 'rife with issues of fact' that should be resolved by a trial, not by a judge's preliminary ruling.
Analysis:
This decision reinforces the high evidentiary burden required to sustain a claim of fraud, particularly at the summary judgment stage. By holding that the absence of a divorce decree is not enough to create a triable issue, the court protects long-term relationships and testamentary dispositions from challenges based on suspicion alone. The ruling makes it more difficult for will contestants to proceed to trial on fraud claims without affirmative evidence of an intent to deceive and proof that the testator's actions were a direct result of that deception. This protects the testator's intent, especially when the devise is consistent with a long and affectionate relationship.
