Estate of Fisk
-------------------------------------------------------
North Dakota Department of
Human Services, Petitioner and Appellant
v.
Royce S. Fisk as Personal
Representative of the Estate
of Mary Ann Fisk, deceased, Respondent and Appellee
Judge Richard L. Hagar
| Appellant: | Blaine L. Nordwall , Spec. Asst. Atty. Gen. | |
| Appellee: | Carol K. Larson |
Listen to recording of oral argument
Listen to recording of second oral argument
using RealPlayer Basic,© a free download.
1. The District Court determined that payment of funeral expenses totaling $6,206.25 has a priority over the Department's claim for repayment of medical assistance furnished to the decedent's late spouse. The issue is whether the District Court erred in this determination.
2. The District Court determined that the fees proposed to be paid to the personal representative were not unreasonable. The issue is whether this determination was supported by the facts and the law.
3. The District Court approved without comment, and as a part of the personal representative's fee, amounts paid to an attorney although there is no record of any activity undertaken by that attorney for the benefit of the estate. The issue is whether these attorney fees were properly approved.
4. The personal representative acknowledged paying certain decedent's debts owed to creditors with claims junior to the Department's claim. The District Court made no determination approving or disapproving this acknowledgment, although the personal representative's inventory discloses no funds from which the junior claims could have been paid, and the personal representative's final accounting discloses no payment. The issue is whether a determination was required by the facts and the law.
APPELLANT'S BRIEF ON REHEARING
1.The District Court did not apply N.D.C.C. 50-24.1-07(1) to determine claim priorities in this insolvent estate with a claim for repayment of medical assistance furnished to the decedent's late spouse. The issue is whether the District Court applied the wrong statute in this determination.
2.The District Court determined that the fees proposed to be paid to the personal representative were not unreasonable. The issue is whether the District Court made clearly erroneous findings unsupported by any facts in the record and ignored statutes requiring the personal representative to act as a fiduciary.
3.The District Court approved without comment, and as a part of the personal representative's fee, amounts paid to an attorney by the personal representative. The issue is whether the District Court abused its discretion in approving these attorney fees when there is no evidence in the record of any activity undertaken by that attorney for the benefit of the estate.
Add Docket 20090157 RSS