Estate of Dion
In the Matter of the Estate of Leo H. Dion
Viola Bartusch, Petitioner and Appellant
Kenneth Hager, Personal
Representative of the
Estate of Leo H. Dion, Respondent and Appellee
Carnegie Library and
Devils Lake Area Foundation, Appellee
Northeast Judicial District,
Judge Donovan John Foughty
|Nature of Action:||Probate - Wills - Trusts|
|Term:||12/2000  Argument: 12/12/2000 10:45am|
|ND cite:||2001 ND 53|
623 N.W.2d 720
Appellant's Statement of the Issues:|
1. Did the trial court err by not finding the will invalid as a matter of law under N.D.C.C. 30.1-29-08's prohibition against court-made wills -- or at least by not presenting to the jury as a question of fact the court-made will claim and/or undue influence claims?
2. Did the trial court err by not finding the will invalid because the court became involved with making the will without following the ante-mortem probate statute, N.D.C.C. 30.1-08.1-02, 03, requiring notice to all intestate heirs and an in-court proceeding to determine the existence of "the requisite testamentary capacity and freedom from undue influence"?
3. Did the trial court err by denying a motion for new trial on testamentary capacity?
4. Did the trial court err by not transferring venue of the trial from Ramsey County when a county-funded library was a principal heir in the contested will?
5. Did the trial court err by awarding attorney's fees, statutory costs and disbursements against me?
Appellee's Statement of the Issues:
1. Whether section 30.1-29-08, N.D.C.C. invalidates the Last Will and Testament executed by Leo H. Dion on June 18, 1998.
2. Whether the court erred in not presenting to the jury the issue of whether section 30.1-29-08, N.D.C.C., invalidates the Last Will and Testament executed by Leo H. Dion on June 18, 1998.
3. Whether the trial court property granted a directed verdict against Bartusch on the issues of the alleged undue influence of Michael Steffan and Patsy Hood.
4. Whether the Last Will and Testament executed by Leo H. Dion on June 18, 1998, is invalid because the court did not order that the "ante-mortem probate statute" procedure, set forth in sections 30.1-08.1-02 and 30.1-08.1-03, N.D.C.C. be used.
5. Whether the trial court erred in denying a motion for new trial on the issues of testamentary capacity.
6. Whether the trial court abuse its discretion in denying a motion for change of venue.
7. Whether the trial court abused its discretion in awarding attorneys fees, statutory costs and disbursements against Bartusch.
|Add Docket 20000178 RSS|
|1||06/19/2000||NOTICE OF APPEAL: 06/14/2000|
|2||06/19/2000||ORDER FOR TRANSCRIPT: 06/14/2000|
|3||07/13/2000||RECORD ON APPEAL (5 volumes) and Exhibits|
|4||07/28/2000||TRANSCRIPTS DATED March 13, 14, 15, 16, & 17, 2000 (5 volumes)|
|5||08/01/2000||DISKS - TRA (5) (March 13-17, 2000)|
|8||09/08/2000||DISK - ATB|
|10||10/11/2000||MOT. EXT/TIME APPELLEE BRIEF (sua suponte)|
|11||10/11/2000||ACTION BY CLERK. Granted: 10/20/2000|
|13||10/17/2000||DISK - AEB|
|14||12/12/2000||APPEARANCES: Viola Bartusch; Peter K. Halbach, J. Thomas Traynor|
|15||12/12/2000||ARGUED: Bartusch; Halbach (Vol. X; page 94)|
|16||12/12/2000||ORAL ARGUMENT WEBCAST|
|18||03/20/2001||UNANIMOUS OPINION: Kapsner, Carol Ronning|
|19||03/20/2001||Costs on appeal taxed in favor of appellees|
|20||03/21/2001||Order/Judgment Mailed to Parties|
|22||04/13/2001||RECEIPT SIGNED BY DISTRICT COURT CLERK'S OFFICE|
|23||06/12/2007||EXPUNGED - Nonpermanent record items destroyed|