[¶ 2] Whether the District Court erred in finding Wells Fargo, N.A. had standing to dispute the District Court’s Order Establishing Proof of Authority of Domiciliary Foreign Personal Representative and Letters Testamentary in the Estate of Viola J. Heath.
[¶ 3] Whether the District Court erred in finding Wells Fargo, N.A. had standing to dispute the District Court’s Order for Determination of Heirs and Successors in the Estate of Caleb C. Heath.
[¶ 4] Whether the District Court erred when they found they lacked subject matter jurisdiction to issue the Order Establishing Proof of Authority of Domiciliary Foreign Personal Representative and Letters Testamentary.
[¶ 5] Whether the District Court erred when they found Wells Fargo, N.A. brought their motions to vacate within a reasonable time under N.D.R.Civ.P 60(b).
[¶ 6] Whether the District Court's finding that it was common knowledge that Wells Fargo, N.A. was a successor to Norwest Capital Management & Trust Co. is clearly erroneous since there was no evidence to support its findings.
[¶ 7] Whether the District Court erred when they found Gayle Schleve failed to exercise reasonable diligence prior to providing notice by publication when seeking an Order for Determination of Heirs and Successors in the Estate of Caleb C. Heath.

1. Did the district court correctly find that Wells Fargo, the personal representative of Caleb Heath’s estate and trustee of his trust, of which Caleb’s minerals are a trust asset, had standing to:
a. challenge orders in the ancillary proceeding that were used to try to convey title to those minerals, and,
b. to challenge the order in the heirship proceeding that references title to the minerals?
2. Did the district court correctly find that it lacked jurisdiction over the ancillary probate where the Montana court overseeing the primary probate had suspended its appointment of personal representatives and closed the probate two decades earlier?
3. Did the district court correctly find that it lacked jurisdiction over Wells Fargo in the heirship case where the petitioner gave notice only by publication and did not explain what effort, if any, she made to identify Wells Fargo as an interested party?
4. Did the district court correctly find that its order in the heirship case should be vacated because, in addition to the jurisdictional issue, doing so was justified by extraordinary circumstances?