North Dakota’s Supreme Court reverses a decision to reform a will, finding that the decision was based on post-execution evidence rather than relying on the will’s stated intent. In the Matter of the Estate of Randall M. Moe a/k/a Randy M. Moe, Deceased, Amanda Miller, Personal Representative, Petitioner and Appellee v. Cynthia Almer, Respondent and Appellant (N.D. No. 20240197, January 9, 2025).
Randall Moe had one child, Amanda Miller, while he was married between 1978 to 1981. After his divorce he was in a relationship with Cynthia Almer. Shortly after his relationship with Ms. Almer ended, he executed a will in December 1989. Ms. Miller was 10 years old at the time.
Mr. Moe died in July 2022. After Ms. Miller submitted an application for informal appointment, the district court appointed her as the personal representative of Mr. Moe’s estate. In November 2022, Ms. Almer filed a petition for formal probate of the estate and to set aside Ms. Miller’s appointment as personal representative.
Ms. Miller requested the court reform the will to reflect what some people viewed as Mr. Moe’s desire to leave his estate to Ms. Miller and also to allow her to continue as the personal representative of his estate.
The district court held a bench trial in January 2024 and found Mr. Moe’s will to be valid and enforceable. However, the district court concluded that the will was affected by a mistake of law or fact and that Mr. Moe intended to provide his estate to Ms. Miller through a guardianship by Ms. Almer until Ms. Miller reached 18 years old. The district court reformed the third clause of the will to reflect its finding and also reformed the will to appoint Ms. Miller as the personal representative.
Ms. Almer argues that the district court erred when it declared it found clear and convincing evidence that the will was affected by a mistake of fact or law and that it did not reflect Mr. Moe’s intentions. Ms. Almer also argues that the district court erred when it decided the third and fifth clauses of the will are inconsistent and when it did not give proper weight to Mr. Moe’s intentions when he executed his will.
The district court based its decision on its interpretation of the third and fifth clauses of Mr. Moe’s will. In the third clause, Mr. Moe bequeaths all of his property to Ms. Almer. In the fifth clause, he names Ms. Almer as guardian of his daughter, Ms. Miller, and conservator for her estate and directs Ms. Almer to use any property that Ms. Miller may have for her support and education.
The fourth clause of Mr. Moe’s will is also noteworthy. This clause states that Ms. Miller is to get Mr. Moe’s estate if Ms. Almer predeceases him. Ms. Almer is, obviously, still alive. The court concludes that the will is not direct evidence that Mr. Moe intended to leave his estate to Ms. Miller if Ms. Almer is still alive.
Testimony of recent conversations with Mr. Moe reveals that he had a great relationship with his daughter and expected that all his assets would pass to her. According to testimony, Mr. Moe claimed he didn’t have a will. These conversations happened years or decades after he executed his will. Though these revelations reflect a changed and more recent view Mr. Moe had regarding his property, they can’t change his unambiguous intentions when he executed his will in 1989.
The court concludes that the district court erred when it used post-execution evidence to reinterpret Mr. Moe’s intentions when he executed his will and reverses the district court’s judgment.
Subscribe to the Knowledge Bank.
