Legal Opinion

Bartz v. Heringer

North Dakota Supreme Court

Decided July 15, 1982No. Civ. 10139PublishedCited by 7 opinions

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

  1. Frandson v. CaseyNorth Dakota Supreme Court · 1955
  2. In Re GlavkeeNorth Dakota Supreme Court · 1948
  3. Simons v. TancreNorth Dakota Supreme Court · 1982
  4. In Re Tonneson's EstateNorth Dakota Supreme Court · 1965
  5. Fettig v. FettigNorth Dakota Supreme Court · 1979

1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by7 opinions

  1. Matter of Estate of PetersonNorth Dakota Supreme Court · 1997
  2. Cooper v. CooperSupreme Court of Vermont · 2001
  3. Fries v. FriesNorth Dakota Supreme Court · 1991
  4. Matter of Estate of NeshemNorth Dakota Supreme Court · 1998
  5. Schmidt v. WittingerNorth Dakota Supreme Court · 2004

2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API