Curtis L. Erickson, Plaintiff and Appellee
Dean Olsen, Susan Olsen, Bobby Olsen, Clee Raye Olsen, Marion Bergquist, and the Estate of Clarence Erickson, Defendants Dean Olsen, Susan Olsen, Bobby Olsen, Clee Raye Olsen, Marion Bergquist, Defendants and Appellants
As Corrected April 26, 2016.
Appeal from the District Court of Burleigh County, South Central Judicial District, the Honorable Cynthia Feland, Judge.
Daniel J. Nagle, Mandan, N.D., for plaintiff and appellee.
Tyler J. Malm (argued), Sheldon A. Smith (on brief), David J. Smith (on brief), Bismarck, N.D., for defendants and appellants.
Gerald W. VandeWalle, C.J., Carol Ronning Kapsner, Lisa Fair McEvers, Daniel J. Crothers, Dale V. Sandstrom.
Gerald W. VandeWalle, Chief Justice.
[¶1] Dean Olsen, Susan Olsen, Bobby Olsen, Clee Raye Olsen, and Marion Bergquist, three stepchildren of Clarence Erickson and two spouses of the stepchildren (collectively " appellants" ), appealed from a second amended judgment granting a motion by Clarence Erickson's biological son, Curtis Erickson, to correct the judgment under N.D.R.Civ.P. 60(a). We conclude the district court abused its discretion in granting relief under Rule 60(a). We reverse the second amended judgment and reinstate the amended judgment.
[¶2] After Clarence Erickson died in December 2010, Curtis Erickson petitioned to rescind certain real and personal property transfers by Clarence Erickson to the appellants and to invalidate his September 2010 will. After a bench trial, the district court entered a judgment concluding that undue influence was exerted over Clarence Erickson when executing his will and while transferring real and personal property to the appellants, that Clarence Erickson lacked capacity to transfer money and real property, and that Clarence Erickson lacked testamentary capacity to execute the will. The court denied the appellants' motion to amend the findings and judgment under N.D.R.Civ.P. 52(b).
[¶3] The appellants then moved to correct the judgment under N.D.R.Civ.P. 60(a), asking the district court to require repayment of the purchase prices the appellants paid for real property transfers invalidated by the court's judgment. Before the court ruled on the appellants' Rule 60(a) motion, however, the appellants appealed from the initial judgment.
[¶4] We granted the appellants' motion to temporarily remand to the district court for consideration and disposition of their N.D.R.Civ.P. 60(a) motion. On temporary remand, Curtis Erickson also moved to correct the judgment under Rule 60(a) and to compel discovery. The court granted the appellants' Rule 60(a) motion and issued an amended judgment requiring Clarence Erickson's estate to reimburse Bobby and Clee Raye Olsen and Dean and Susan Olsen for the consideration they paid for the invalidated real property transfers. The court declined, however, to consider Curtis Erickson's motions to compel discovery and to correct the judgment, concluding those motions were not within the scope of the temporary remand.
[¶5] In Erickson v. Olsen,2014 ND 66, ¶ ¶ 1, 31, 844 N.W.2d 585, we affirmed the judgment invalidating Clarence Erickson's will and his transfers of real and personal property to the appellants. After our decision in Erickson, Curtis Erickson filed a renewed motion under N.D.R.Civ.P. 60(a) to correct the judgment and a renewed motion to compel discovery, requesting that Clarence Erickson's ...