931 N.W.2d 482 (N.D. 2019)
Kandi Ann Hall and Tyson Hall married on May 23, 2013.1 They had one minor child together.2 Kandi Hall had three adult children from a prior relationship, including Brianna McLaen.3 Kandi Hall died intestate on February 10, 2018.4
At the time of her death, Kandi Hall owned real property described as Lots 12 and 13 and the South 10 feet of Lot 14, Block 34, First Addition to the City of Forman, Sargent County, North Dakota.5 She initially acquired an undivided one-fourth interest in the property by a July 18, 2012 Personal Representative’s Deed of Distribution, with her three sisters holding the remaining interests.6 In 2013, Kandi Hall and her three sisters executed a warranty deed transferring their interests in the property to Kandi Hall and McLaen as joint tenants.7 Kandi Hall signed the deed as a single woman, and Tyson Hall did not sign the deed.8 Kandi Hall and Tyson Hall resided in a house on the property at the time of her death.9
In April 2018 Tyson Hall was appointed personal representative of Kandi Hall’s intestate estate.10 In June 2018 he petitioned for an elective share of the augmented estate, asserting that the 2013 warranty deed was void because the property was homestead and he had not joined in the conveyance.11 McLaen opposed the petition, arguing that the deed was valid and that Tyson Hall had already received more than his share.12 After a hearing the district court granted the petition, found the deed void, included the full value of the property in the augmented estate, and ordered McLaen to issue a quit claim deed transferring her interest to the estate’s personal representative.13
McLaen appealed the order.14 After Kandi Hall’s death McLaen paid $3,735.32 in overdue property taxes for 2015 through 2017 and $609.20 for property insurance on the real property.15 Tyson Hall conceded that the estate should reimburse the taxes but disputed reimbursement for the insurance.16
Whether a surviving spouse may claim an elective share of an intestate estate under N.D.C.C. § 30.1-05-01?17
Section 30.1-05-01 of the North Dakota Century Code provides that the surviving spouse of a decedent who dies domiciled in this state has a right of election to take an elective share amount equal to fifty percent of the augmented estate.18 The statute contains no language limiting the right of election to testate estates.19 Related provisions in N.D.C.C. § 30.1-05-03 expressly direct that amounts passing by intestate succession are applied first to satisfy the elective share.20
Yes. The plain language of N.D.C.C. § 30.1-05-01 grants the right of election without regard to whether the decedent left a will.21 Kandi Hall died intestate on February 10, 2018, and Tyson Hall as surviving spouse petitioned for an elective share of the augmented estate.22 The statutes are read together and harmonized to permit the claim because the protective purpose against disinheritance through nonprobate transfers applies equally to intestate estates.23
A surviving spouse may claim an elective share of an intestate estate under N.D.C.C. § 30.1-05-01.24
Whether the 2013 warranty deed transferring the real property to Kandi Hall and McLaen as joint tenants is void because Tyson Hall did not join in the conveyance?25
Under N.D.C.C. § 47-18-05 the homestead of a married person cannot be conveyed unless the instrument is executed and acknowledged by both husband and wife.26 A conveyance of homestead without both signatures is void and ineffective as to the interest of the married person who failed to join.27 Conveyances by other co-owners remain effective.28
No. The warranty deed was executed without Tyson Hall's signature while he was married to Kandi Hall and the property was their homestead.29 The deed is therefore ineffective to convey Kandi Hall's one-fourth interest.30 The deed validly conveyed the three-fourths interest from Kandi Hall's sisters to Kandi Hall and McLaen as joint tenants because the sisters' spouses signed.31 Upon Kandi Hall's death her joint tenancy interest in the three-fourths passed, leaving the estate with a one-fourth interest and McLaen with a three-fourths interest.32
The augmented estate therefore includes five-eighths of the property value.33
The 2013 warranty deed is not void in its entirety; it is void only as to Kandi Hall's homestead interest.34
Whether the district court erred by failing to order the estate to reimburse McLaen for property taxes and insurance she paid on the real property?35
A court may order reimbursement for expenses paid by a third party to preserve estate property when those expenses benefit the estate, such as payment of property taxes necessary to avoid foreclosure.36 Reimbursement for insurance is not required absent evidence that the policy was necessary or benefited the estate.37
Yes. McLaen paid $3,735.32 in overdue property taxes for 2015 through 2017 that benefited the estate by preventing tax foreclosure.38 Tyson Hall conceded that the estate should reimburse those taxes.39 The district court therefore erred by failing to order reimbursement for the taxes.40 No. McLaen also paid $609.20 for property insurance.41 There was no evidence that the insurance was required or that it benefited the estate.42 The court did not err by declining to order reimbursement for the insurance.43
The district court erred by failing to order reimbursement for the property taxes but did not err regarding the insurance premiums.44