Bartz v. Heringer
North Dakota Supreme Court
1Opinion of the Court
PEDERSON, Justice.
The issues presented upon this appeal are: (1) whether or not a co-optionee has a fiduciary duty not to enrich himself individ ually at the expense and to the detriment of his fellow co-optionee; and (2) whether or not there exists a latent ambiguity in the testatrix’s will requiring this court to ascertain the testatrix’s true intent. We conclude that a co-optionee has a fiduciary duty not to enrich himself at the expense of his fellow co-optionee.
We further conclude that (1) under the circumstances of this case Ella Bartz’s will was latently ambiguous, requiring us to…
2Cases cited6 opinions
- Frandson v. CaseyNorth Dakota Supreme Court · 1955
- In Re GlavkeeNorth Dakota Supreme Court · 1948
- Simons v. TancreNorth Dakota Supreme Court · 1982
- In Re Tonneson's EstateNorth Dakota Supreme Court · 1965
- Fettig v. FettigNorth Dakota Supreme Court · 1979
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by7 opinions
- Matter of Estate of PetersonNorth Dakota Supreme Court · 1997
- Cooper v. CooperSupreme Court of Vermont · 2001
- Fries v. FriesNorth Dakota Supreme Court · 1991
- Matter of Estate of NeshemNorth Dakota Supreme Court · 1998
- Schmidt v. WittingerNorth Dakota Supreme Court · 2004
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.