Estate of Ewing
Citations
- 2023 ND 124
Syllabus
The district court does not err in finding an oral contract existed when no evidence existed that any party lacked the capacity to contract. Agreeing to sell a party's interest in estate property constitutes valid consideration. The district court does not err in finding mutual assent was present when evidence existed that parties came to an agreement. Substantial, permanent, and valuable improvements made to a property may be considered part performance sufficient to take an oral agreement outside of the statute of frauds. The district court does not err in finding personal property items were distributed properly according to a previously created agreement. The district court does not err in finding a personal representative failed to properly maintain the property when the personal representative failed to obtain home insurance, care for the exterior of the home, or pay utilities. The district court does not abuse its discretion when it denies claims for reimbursement from a personal representative when the personal representative failed to provide evidence on what costs he incurred. The district court may impose a remedial or punitive sanction for contempt when a personal representative breaches his fiduciary duty.
How courts have described this case
Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.
- holding that “[w]e equitably toll a limitations period only when the employer’s affirmative acts mislead the employee and induce him not to act within the limitations period” (citation omitted) (emphasis original)
- holding that “[w]e equitably toll a limitations period only when the employer’s affirmative acts mislead the employee and induce him not to act within the limitations period” (citation omitted) (emphasis original)
- holding employer’s assertion it promoted the “best qualified” two candidates constituted a legitimate, non-discriminatory justification for not promoting plaintiff
- explaining that “to establish the causation prong of a retaliation claim, the employee should demonstrate that the employer knew about the employee’s protected activity”
- holding employer’s assertion that it promoted the “best qualified” two candidates constituted a legitimate, non-discriminatory justification for not promoting plaintiff
- explaining that statistical evidence buttresses a plaintiff’s prima facie age discrimination case (quoting Sessions v. Rusk State Hosp., 648 F.2d 1066, 1071 (5th Cir. 1981))
Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).
Judges: McEvers, Lisa K. Fair
Read full opinion on CourtListenerSourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).
This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.