North Dakota law, specifically under the Uniform Trust Code as adopted and modified in North Dakota Century Code Chapter 59-12, addresses the termination of trusts. A trust can be terminated if all beneficiaries consent and the court finds that continuance of the trust is not necessary to achieve any material purpose. Alternatively, a trust can be terminated if the purpose of the trust has become unlawful, contrary to public policy, or impossible to fulfill. Another avenue for termination is through the doctrine of merger, where a sole trustee is also the sole beneficiary, provided no other interests are affected. In the given scenario, the settlor, who is also the sole trustee and sole beneficiary of a trust established in North Dakota, desires to terminate it. The trust’s stated purpose was to provide for the settlor’s lifelong support, a purpose that is inherently fulfilled as the settlor is the beneficiary. Since the settlor is both the trustee and the sole beneficiary, the equitable and legal titles to the trust property merge in the settlor. This merger effectively terminates the trust without the need for court intervention or the consent of other beneficiaries, as no other beneficiaries exist. This principle is rooted in the common law doctrine of merger and is generally recognized in states that have adopted or modified trust codes, including North Dakota’s approach to trust administration and termination. The key is the confluence of the roles of trustee and beneficiary in a single individual, which extinguishes the trust’s separate existence.

In North Dakota, the Uniform Trust Code, as adopted and modified by state law, governs the interpretation and administration of trusts. When a trustee has discretion to distribute income or principal to a beneficiary, the standard for reviewing that discretion is typically whether the trustee acted in bad faith or with an abuse of discretion. North Dakota Century Code § 59-12-08(1) (formerly § 59-04-14) states that a trustee’s discretion is not an abuse if it is exercised reasonably and in good faith, even if a court would have made a different decision. The Uniform Trust Code generally presumes that a trustee’s discretion is a meaningful power, not merely a ministerial duty. However, the trust instrument itself can specify a standard of review, such as “sole discretion” or “absolute discretion,” which might afford the trustee even broader latitude, though even then, an absolute discretion is not an invitation to act arbitrarily or in bad faith. The key is that the trustee must still act within the bounds of the trust’s purpose and the beneficiaries’ interests, even if those interests are not the sole consideration. The question asks about the standard of review for a trustee’s discretionary distribution power. The correct approach involves understanding that the trustee’s decision is generally respected unless it falls below a threshold of reasonableness and good faith. The law does not require the trustee’s decision to be the “best” possible decision, nor does it automatically allow beneficiaries to compel a distribution simply because they disagree with the trustee’s refusal. The focus is on the trustee’s conduct and the reasonableness of their decision-making process in light of the trust’s terms and objectives.

In North Dakota, the concept of an “interested witness” to a will is governed by North Dakota Century Code (NDCC) Section 30.1-08-03. This statute addresses the validity of a will when a beneficiary is also a witness. The general rule is that a will is not invalidated solely because an interested witness is a beneficiary. However, the statute creates a presumption of undue influence or fraud concerning the devise or legacy to that witness. If this presumption is not rebutted by clear and convincing evidence, the interested witness will only receive the share they would have been entitled to if the testator had died intestate, as if the devise or legacy to them had not been made. This is not a forfeiture of the entire will, but rather a modification of the distribution to the interested witness. The remaining provisions of the will remain valid, and other beneficiaries are unaffected. Therefore, the devise to the interested witness is voidable to the extent it exceeds their intestate share, not the entire will itself.

The Uniform Disclaimer of Property Interests Act (UDPIA), adopted in North Dakota as Chapter 30.1-10.1 of the North Dakota Century Code, governs disclaimers of property interests. A disclaimer is a refusal to accept an interest in property. For a disclaimer to be effective, it must be in writing, signed by the disclaimant or their representative, and describe the interest being disclaimed with reasonable certainty. Furthermore, the disclaimer must be delivered to the transferor of the interest, their legal representative, or the holder of legal title to the property. Crucially, the disclaimer must be delivered no later than nine months after the later of the date of the transferor’s death or the date on which the disclaimant attains twenty-one years of age, whichever is later. In this scenario, Agnes’s disclaimer is delivered to the executor of her grandfather’s estate more than nine months after his death. Therefore, Agnes’s disclaimer is not effective under North Dakota law because it fails to meet the statutory time limit for delivery.

The scenario involves a testator, Elara, who created a will in North Dakota. She subsequently moved to Minnesota and executed a codicil there. The question asks about the validity of the original North Dakota will and the Minnesota codicil under North Dakota law. North Dakota law, specifically NDCC § 30.1-08-06, generally recognizes wills executed in conformity with the law of the place where they were executed or the law of the testator’s domicile at the time of execution. Furthermore, a codicil executed in conformity with the laws of North Dakota, or the law of the place where it was executed, or the testator’s domicile at the time of execution, can validate an otherwise invalid will or alter a valid will. In this case, the original will was validly executed in North Dakota. The codicil was executed in Minnesota. Assuming the codicil was executed in compliance with Minnesota law (which typically requires it to be in writing, signed by the testator, and witnessed by two individuals), North Dakota law would recognize its validity as a modification of the original will, provided the codicil itself is valid in Minnesota and does not revoke the prior North Dakota will in a manner contrary to North Dakota public policy or statutory intent. Since the codicil is presumed to be validly executed in Minnesota and does not inherently contradict North Dakota law regarding the disposition of property, it serves to amend the existing will. Therefore, both the original North Dakota will, as originally executed, and the subsequent Minnesota codicil, are considered valid and effective in North Dakota. The effect is that the codicil modifies the original will, and the entire estate distribution is governed by the will as amended by the codicil.

The scenario involves a holographic will, which is a will entirely in the testator’s handwriting. North Dakota law, specifically under N.D. Cent. Code § 30.1-08-03, recognizes holographic wills as valid if they are entirely in the handwriting of the testator. The key elements for validity are the testator’s signature and the entirety of the testamentary disposition being in their own handwriting. The fact that the document was created on a digital device and printed does not automatically invalidate it as a holographic will in North Dakota, provided the entire content, including the dispositive provisions and the signature, was demonstrably handwritten by the testator onto the paper. The presence of a witness signature is not a requirement for a holographic will. The question tests the understanding of the specific requirements for holographic wills in North Dakota and how technology might interact with these requirements. The critical factor is the testator’s handwriting of the entire document, not the medium of initial creation if it is then physically rendered in the testator’s hand.

The scenario involves a will that was executed prior to the testator’s marriage. North Dakota law, specifically North Dakota Century Code (NDCC) §30.1-08-03, addresses the effect of marriage on a pre-existing will. This statute provides that if a testator executes a will and is later married, and the spouse is not provided for in the will, and it appears that the omission was unintentional or that the testator would not have made the provision except for the omission, the omitted spouse is entitled to a share in the estate. This share is typically the same share that the spouse would have received if the testator had died intestate, unless the omission was intentional and made known by the testator in the will or by a separate written instrument. In this case, the will predates the marriage to Ms. Peterson. Mr. Henderson did not remarry after executing the will, and Ms. Peterson is his surviving spouse. There is no indication within the will itself or in any separate written instrument that Ms. Peterson was intentionally omitted or that Mr. Henderson intended for her to receive nothing from his estate. Therefore, under North Dakota law, Ms. Peterson would be entitled to the intestate share of Mr. Henderson’s estate. The intestate share for a surviving spouse in North Dakota, when there are no surviving descendants, is the entire estate, as per NDCC §30.1-04-01. Thus, Ms. Peterson would inherit the entirety of Mr. Henderson’s estate.

The scenario involves the interpretation of a holographic will under North Dakota law. A holographic will is one written entirely in the testator’s handwriting and signed by the testator. North Dakota law, specifically North Dakota Century Code (NDCC) § 30.1-08-03, addresses the validity of such wills. This statute requires that a will be in writing, signed by the testator, or in the testator’s name by some other individual in the testator’s presence and by the testator’s direction. For holographic wills, the critical element is that the entire body of the will, including the dispositive provisions and the testator’s signature, must be in the testator’s handwriting. The will in question is described as being written on a piece of paper, entirely in the testator’s handwriting, and signed by the testator. This directly aligns with the requirements for a valid holographic will in North Dakota. The presence of a date is not a strict statutory requirement for the validity of a holographic will in North Dakota, though it is good practice and can be important for determining the testator’s intent and the order of wills if multiple are made. However, the absence of a date does not automatically invalidate a holographic will if the other requirements are met and the testator’s intent is clear. Therefore, the will is valid as a holographic will.

In North Dakota, the determination of a surviving spouse’s elective share is governed by North Dakota Century Code Chapter 30.1-05. The elective share is a statutory right that allows a surviving spouse to take a portion of the decedent’s estate, regardless of what is provided in the will. This right is intended to protect spouses from being disinherited. The amount of the elective share is calculated based on the length of the marriage. For a marriage lasting 15 years or more, the surviving spouse is entitled to one-half of the augmented estate. The augmented estate is a broad concept that includes the decedent’s net probate estate, as well as certain nonprobate transfers and the surviving spouse’s own contributions to the marriage. Specifically, under NDCC § 30.1-05-02, the augmented estate is defined as the sum of the value of the decedent’s net probate estate plus the value of all property transferred to anyone other than the surviving spouse by the decedent during marriage, minus certain deductions, and adding back the value of property transferred to the surviving spouse. The statute also allows for certain exclusions from the augmented estate, such as property transferred for consideration. For a marriage of 15 years or more, the surviving spouse’s elective share is one-half of this augmented estate, as per NDCC § 30.1-05-03. The calculation involves identifying all assets that constitute the augmented estate, subtracting allowable deductions, and then determining the spouse’s share. In this scenario, the marriage has lasted 22 years, which is more than 15 years. Therefore, the surviving spouse is entitled to one-half of the augmented estate. The augmented estate is calculated as the net probate estate ($500,000) plus the value of the jointly owned property with the sister ($150,000) and the value of the life insurance policy payable to the nephew ($100,000), minus the funeral expenses ($10,000). The jointly owned property with the sister is not included in the augmented estate because it was a transfer to someone other than the surviving spouse, and the statute’s calculation of the augmented estate considers transfers to non-spouses. However, the life insurance payable to the nephew is considered a nonprobate transfer to someone other than the surviving spouse and is therefore included. The augmented estate calculation is: \( \$500,000 \text{ (net probate estate)} + \$100,000 \text{ (life insurance)} – \$10,000 \text{ (funeral expenses)} = \$590,000 \). The elective share is then one-half of this amount: \( \frac{1}{2} \times \$590,000 = \$295,000 \). The jointly owned property with the sister, valued at $150,000, is not added to the augmented estate for the purpose of calculating the spouse’s elective share because the statute specifically addresses transfers to “anyone other than the surviving spouse,” and the spouse’s own property, even if jointly owned, is not typically added back in the same way as the decedent’s transfers to third parties. The relevant statute, NDCC § 30.1-05-02(2)(a), includes property transferred by the decedent to anyone other than the surviving spouse. The jointly owned property with the sister, if it was indeed a transfer from the decedent to the sister, would be considered. However, the typical calculation of the augmented estate focuses on the decedent’s net probate estate and the decedent’s non-probate transfers. The question states “jointly owned property with the sister,” which implies it was owned by the decedent and the sister. If the decedent’s interest in that property was transferred to the sister during marriage and is considered a non-probate transfer to someone other than the spouse, it would be included. However, the standard interpretation of augmented estate calculations often focuses on the decedent’s assets and their transfers. Given the typical structure of these questions, the jointly owned property with the sister is likely not intended to be added to the decedent’s augmented estate as a transfer *by the decedent* to a third party, but rather as property already jointly owned. The life insurance policy payable to the nephew is a clear non-probate transfer by the decedent to someone other than the spouse. Therefore, the augmented estate is the net probate estate plus the life insurance proceeds, less funeral expenses. \( \$500,000 + \$100,000 – \$10,000 = \$590,000 \). The elective share is \( \$590,000 / 2 = \$295,000 \).

In North Dakota, a holographic will is a will that is written entirely in the testator’s handwriting and signed by the testator. Unlike a formal will, it does not require any witnesses. North Dakota Century Code Section 30.1-08-03 addresses the validity of holographic wills. For a holographic will to be valid in North Dakota, it must be entirely in the testator’s handwriting and signed by the testator. If any part of the will is typed or printed, and not in the testator’s handwriting, it is generally not considered a valid holographic will in North Dakota. The key distinction is the complete handwritten nature of the document.

In North Dakota, the Uniform Principal and Income Act (UPIA), as adopted and potentially modified by state law, governs the allocation of receipts and expenses between income beneficiaries and remainder beneficiaries of a trust. For a business owned by the trust, North Dakota law, specifically referencing the principles found in the UPIA, generally treats ordinary cash dividends from a closely held corporation as income. Extraordinary stock dividends, however, are typically allocated to principal. Net profits of a business owned by the trust, when distributed, are generally considered income unless the UPIA or specific trust terms dictate otherwise. In this scenario, the distribution of $50,000 in cash dividends from the closely held corporation is an ordinary distribution. The $25,000 in retained earnings that were reinvested back into the business, thereby increasing the business’s value, are not a distribution to the trust and therefore remain part of the principal. The $10,000 distribution representing the profits from the business’s operations, which is a cash distribution of earnings, is treated as income under the general principles of the UPIA. Therefore, the total amount to be allocated to income is the $50,000 in cash dividends plus the $10,000 profit distribution, totaling $60,000. The remaining $25,000 reinvested in the business is allocated to principal.

The scenario involves the concept of a “holographic will” in North Dakota. North Dakota law, specifically North Dakota Century Code (NDCC) § 30.1-08-03, defines a valid will. While a will must generally be in writing, signed by the testator, and attested by two witnesses, NDCC § 30.1-08-03(2) provides an exception for holographic wills. A holographic will is one that is written entirely in the testator’s handwriting and signed by the testator. It does not require witnesses. In this case, Ms. Gable’s entire document, including the date and her signature, is in her own handwriting. Therefore, it qualifies as a holographic will under North Dakota law, making it a valid testamentary disposition. The key elements are the entirety of the writing being in the testator’s hand and the signature. No other formal execution requirements, such as attestation by witnesses, apply to holographic wills.

The scenario involves the concept of a “holographic will” in North Dakota. North Dakota law, specifically under North Dakota Century Code § 30.1-08-04, recognizes holographic wills as valid if they are entirely in the testator’s handwriting and signed by the testator. The key here is that the will must be *entirely* in the testator’s handwriting. In the given situation, the codicil was typed and then signed, with only the signature and a few added words being in the testator’s handwriting. This does not meet the statutory requirement for a holographic will, which demands the entire document to be in the testator’s handwriting. Therefore, the typed codicil, not being entirely in the testator’s handwriting, would not be considered a valid holographic will under North Dakota law. The prior validly executed will remains in effect for any provisions not properly altered or revoked by a valid testamentary instrument.

In North Dakota, the determination of a surviving spouse’s elective share is governed by North Dakota Century Code (NDCC) Chapter 30.1-05. The augmented estate is the basis for calculating this share. The augmented estate generally includes the decedent’s net probate estate, plus certain non-probate transfers and transfers made by the decedent during their lifetime to the extent they were not for full consideration. Specifically, NDCC 30.1-05-02 defines the augmented estate, which includes property owned by the decedent at death, property transferred to a donee other than the surviving spouse that is includible in the decedent’s gross estate for federal estate tax purposes, and property transferred to the surviving spouse to the extent it is not included in the decedent’s gross estate for federal estate tax purposes. The elective share is typically one-third of the augmented estate, as per NDCC 30.1-05-01. Consider the following scenario to illustrate the calculation: Deceased spouse’s net probate estate: $500,000 Jointly owned property with surviving spouse (right of survivorship): $300,000 (decedent’s contribution was $150,000) Life insurance policy with surviving spouse as beneficiary, premiums paid solely by decedent: $200,000 Revocable trust created by decedent, with surviving spouse as sole beneficiary upon death: $400,000 First, we determine the components of the augmented estate according to NDCC 30.1-05-02. 1. Net probate estate: $500,000 2. Property transferred to a donee other than the surviving spouse that is includible in the decedent’s gross estate for federal estate tax purposes: In this scenario, there are no such transfers mentioned. 3. Property transferred to the surviving spouse to the extent it is not included in the decedent’s gross estate for federal estate tax purposes: a. Jointly owned property: Under North Dakota law, for augmented estate purposes, one-half of the value of property held by the decedent and the surviving spouse as joint tenants with right of survivorship is generally included, unless the surviving spouse contributed to the acquisition of the property. Here, the decedent’s contribution was $150,000, and the total value is $300,000. Assuming equal contributions for simplicity in illustrating the concept, or if the decedent paid the full amount, the surviving spouse’s half is $150,000. However, NDCC 30.1-05-02(2)(ii) includes the value of property owned by the decedent at death and property transferred to others, and NDCC 30.1-05-02(2)(iii) includes property transferred to the surviving spouse. For jointly held property with right of survivorship, the entire value is generally considered if the decedent provided the consideration. If the surviving spouse contributed, their contribution is excluded. Assuming the decedent provided all consideration for the $300,000 jointly owned property, the full $300,000 is considered for the augmented estate, but the calculation for the elective share is based on the *decedent’s* interest. For augmented estate calculation purposes, the value of the joint tenancy passing to the surviving spouse is generally included to the extent the decedent paid for it. If the decedent paid $150,000 and the surviving spouse paid $150,000, then $150,000 would be included. If the decedent paid the entire $300,000, then $300,000 would be included. The question states the decedent’s contribution was $150,000, implying the surviving spouse also contributed $150,000. Thus, $150,000 of the jointly held property is included. b. Life insurance policy: The entire $200,000 is included as it passed to the surviving spouse and premiums were paid by the decedent. c. Revocable trust: The entire $400,000 is included as it is a transfer to the surviving spouse. Augmented Estate = Net Probate Estate + (Surviving Spouse’s Share of Joint Property) + Life Insurance + Revocable Trust Augmented Estate = $500,000 + $150,000 + $200,000 + $400,000 = $1,250,000 The surviving spouse’s elective share is one-third of the augmented estate. Elective Share = \( \frac{1}{3} \times \$1,250,000 \) = \( \$416,666.67 \) The explanation focuses on the components of the augmented estate as defined by North Dakota law, specifically NDCC 30.1-05-02, and the calculation of the elective share as one-third of this augmented estate under NDCC 30.1-05-01. It details how non-probate assets passing to the surviving spouse, such as jointly held property, life insurance, and revocable trusts, are generally included in the augmented estate calculation. The specific treatment of jointly held property, considering the decedent’s contribution, is a key aspect of North Dakota law. The calculation demonstrates the summation of these components to arrive at the augmented estate, followed by the division by three to determine the elective share.

In North Dakota, a holographic will is a will that is written entirely in the testator’s handwriting and signed by the testator. Unlike a formal attested will, a holographic will does not require witnesses. North Dakota law, specifically North Dakota Century Code § 30.1-08-03, permits holographic wills, provided they meet these specific criteria. The key is that the entire testamentary disposition must be in the testator’s handwriting. If any material part of the will is written by someone else, or if it is typed or printed even if signed by the testator, it will not be considered a valid holographic will in North Dakota. The intent to make a will must also be clear from the document itself. Therefore, a will that is entirely in the testator’s handwriting and signed by the testator is valid as a holographic will in North Dakota, even without witnesses.

North Dakota law, specifically under North Dakota Century Code Chapter 30.1-08, addresses the revocation of wills. A will can be revoked by a subsequent writing that expresses an intent to revoke or is executed in the manner required for the execution of a will. Alternatively, a will can be revoked by an act of destruction, such as burning, tearing, canceling, obliterating, or destroying the will, with the intent to revoke. For a physical act of destruction to be effective, it must be performed by the testator or by another person in the testator’s presence and by the testator’s direction. In the scenario presented, the testator, Elias Thorne, intended to revoke his 2015 will. He took the original document and tore it into several pieces. This physical act, coupled with his expressed intent to revoke, constitutes a valid revocation under North Dakota law, provided the tearing was done by Elias himself or by another at his direction and in his presence. The subsequent creation of a new will in 2018, which was properly executed, further solidifies the revocation of the prior will. The 2018 will, by its nature as a later, validly executed testamentary instrument, revokes all prior wills. Therefore, the 2015 will is considered revoked by both the physical act of destruction with intent and by the execution of the later will.

The scenario involves a testamentary trust established in a will. North Dakota law, specifically NDCC § 30.1-08-01, governs the formal requirements for executing a will, including the necessity of two witnesses. A holographic will, which is entirely in the testator’s handwriting and signed by the testator, is valid in North Dakota without witnesses under NDCC § 30.1-08-08. However, the question states that the will was “signed by the testator and witnessed by two individuals,” indicating it was intended to be a formal will, not a holographic one. The core issue is whether the trust provisions within this formal will are effective. For a trust to be valid, there must be intent to create a trust, identifiable trust property (res), and ascertainable beneficiaries. The will clearly expresses intent to create a trust for the benefit of the testator’s grandchildren. The residuary estate, consisting of bank accounts, stocks, and real property in Fargo, North Dakota, serves as the trust property. The grandchildren are clearly identified beneficiaries. Therefore, the trust is validly created by the will, and its provisions will be honored. The fact that the will is contested on grounds unrelated to the trust’s formation (e.g., undue influence or lack of capacity) does not invalidate the trust itself if the will is ultimately admitted to probate. The trust is an integral part of the testamentary disposition.

In North Dakota, the concept of “pretermitted heir” or “unintentionally omitted heir” is addressed under NDCC § 30.1-06-01. This statute outlines the circumstances under which an heir who is not provided for in a will may still inherit. Specifically, if a testator fails to provide for a child born or adopted after the execution of the will, and that child is not mentioned in the will or provided for by any settlement, the omitted child receives a share in the estate. This share is generally equivalent to what the child would have received if the testator had died intestate, meaning without a will. However, this right does not extend to cases where the omission was intentional and this intention appears in the will itself, or where the testator had other children and devised substantially all of the estate to the other parent of the omitted child. The statute’s purpose is to prevent accidental disinheritance. The calculation for the omitted child’s share is based on the intestate succession laws of North Dakota. If the decedent is survived by a spouse and children, the spouse typically receives the first portion of the estate, and the remainder is divided among the children. In this scenario, the omitted child, as a descendant of the testator, would be entitled to a portion of the estate that reflects their intestate share, considering the existence of the surviving spouse and the other children. The specific share is determined by the intestate succession rules applicable at the time of the testator’s death, as outlined in NDCC § 30.1-04-01. The omitted child would receive an equal share with the other children, after the spouse’s statutory allowance.

North Dakota law, specifically concerning the administration of estates, outlines the priority of claims against a decedent’s estate. The North Dakota Century Code, Chapter 30.1-20, details these priorities. When an estate is insufficient to pay all claims, they are paid in a specific order. The highest priority is given to expenses of administration, including the costs of the funeral and burial, and any allowances provided for the surviving spouse and minor children. Following these are claims for the costs of the last illness. Next in priority are claims of the state and any county or other political subdivision of the state. After these, secured claims, meaning those for which collateral has been pledged, are addressed to the extent of the value of the collateral. Finally, unsecured claims, such as those for general debts, services, or goods provided during the decedent’s lifetime, are paid. In this scenario, the claim for medical services rendered during the decedent’s final illness falls under the category of costs of last illness, which has a higher priority than general unsecured debts. Therefore, the hospital’s claim would be paid before the credit card company’s claim, assuming there are sufficient funds to cover the higher priority claims.

The North Dakota Uniform Trust Code, specifically North Dakota Century Code Chapter 56-05, addresses the modification and termination of trusts. A trust can be terminated if it is uneconomical to continue, as defined by the code. Section 56-05-07 outlines that a trustee may terminate a trust if the trust’s value is insufficient to justify the cost of administration. This threshold is generally considered to be $50,000 or less, though the specific amount can be influenced by the nature of the trust assets and administrative expenses. In this scenario, the trust corpus is valued at $45,000, which falls below the commonly accepted threshold for uneconomical administration under North Dakota law. Therefore, the trustee has the legal authority to terminate the trust, provided they follow the proper notification procedures as stipulated by the Uniform Trust Code, which typically involves providing notice to the qualified beneficiaries and any co-trustees. The termination process would involve distributing the remaining trust assets to the current income beneficiaries in accordance with the trust’s terms, or if the terms are silent on this specific distribution upon termination for uneconomical administration, then as if the trust had terminated by its own terms.

The North Dakota Century Code (NDCC) § 30.1-04-01 defines a holographic will as one that is entirely in the handwriting of the testator. NDCC § 30.1-08-01 outlines the requirements for a will to be valid, generally requiring it to be in writing, signed by the testator, and attested by two witnesses. However, NDCC § 30.1-08-04 specifically addresses holographic wills, stating that a will written entirely in the testator’s handwriting is valid even if not witnessed. In this scenario, Elara’s entire will, including the date and her signature, is in her own handwriting. Therefore, it meets the criteria for a valid holographic will in North Dakota, irrespective of the absence of witnesses. The fact that it is dated is also a common practice and generally strengthens the will, though not strictly required for holographic validity if the intent and handwriting are clear. The key is the testator’s handwriting for the entire document.

In North Dakota, a holographic will, which is entirely in the testator’s handwriting and signed by the testator, is valid without attestation by witnesses. This is governed by North Dakota Century Code (NDCC) § 30.1-08-03. The question presents a scenario where a testator, Elias Thorne, drafted a will entirely in his own handwriting and signed it. However, he did not have any witnesses present during the signing. Under North Dakota law, the absence of witnesses for a document that is entirely in the testator’s handwriting and signed by the testator does not invalidate the will. Therefore, Elias Thorne’s will is valid. The other options present scenarios that would either invalidate a will or are not applicable to holographic wills in North Dakota. An attested will requires witnesses, a will signed by a mark would generally require witnesses unless the mark is acknowledged by a notary, and a will that is not entirely in the testator’s handwriting would require attestation by witnesses even if signed. The core principle here is the specific exception for holographic wills in North Dakota, which bypasses the usual witness requirements.

In North Dakota, the Uniform Trust Code, as adopted and modified by state law, governs the interpretation and administration of trusts. Specifically, North Dakota Century Code (NDCC) § 56-04-01 defines a trust as a fiduciary relationship between a settlor, a trustee, and a beneficiary. The question concerns the ability of a settlor to revoke or amend a trust. Under NDCC § 56-04-15, a settlor may revoke or amend a revocable trust unless the terms of the trust expressly provide that it is irrevocable. If a trust is irrevocable, the settlor generally cannot revoke or amend it without the consent of all beneficiaries or court approval, unless the trust instrument itself provides a mechanism for amendment or revocation. The scenario describes a trust that does not contain any language indicating irrevocability. Therefore, the settlor retains the power to revoke or amend the trust. The existence of a remainder beneficiary does not, in itself, prevent revocation of a revocable trust, as the settlor’s intent to retain control is paramount in such cases. The Uniform Trust Code aims to respect the settlor’s intent, and in the absence of express language to the contrary, a trust is presumed revocable.

The core issue here revolves around the application of North Dakota’s intestacy laws when a decedent dies without a will, and the surviving spouse has remarried. Specifically, the distribution of the decedent’s estate is governed by North Dakota Century Code (NDCC) § 30.1-04-01, which details the shares of a surviving spouse and descendants. When a decedent is survived by a spouse and one or more descendants, all of whom are also descendants of the surviving spouse, the surviving spouse inherits the entire net estate. This is a key provision that overrides any potential complications arising from a prior marriage of the surviving spouse, as the focus is on the marital relationship at the time of death and the lineage of the descendants. The fact that the decedent’s children are also the children of the surviving spouse is crucial. The prior marriage of the surviving spouse to a different individual does not alter the distribution scheme under North Dakota intestacy law concerning the current marital estate. The law prioritizes the immediate family unit at the time of death. Therefore, the surviving spouse, having been married to the decedent at the time of the decedent’s death and sharing all children with the decedent, is entitled to the entire net estate.

The core issue in this scenario revolves around the concept of a lapsed legacy and its treatment under North Dakota law, specifically concerning antilapse statutes. A lapsed legacy occurs when a beneficiary named in a will predeceases the testator. North Dakota’s antilapse statute, codified in N.D. Cent. Code § 30.1-09-04, addresses this by providing that if a beneficiary who is a grandparent or a lineal descendant of a grandparent of the testator dies before the testator, the beneficiary’s descendants who survive the testator take the property devised in the beneficiary’s place. In this case, Elara, the testator, devised a specific sum of money to her cousin, Finn. Cousins are generally considered descendants of a grandparent. Finn predeceased Elara. However, Finn had no surviving descendants. Therefore, the antilapse statute does not apply to save the legacy for Finn’s issue. Without a residuary clause in Elara’s will to capture the failed legacy, and in the absence of any specific provision for this contingency, the lapsed legacy of $50,000 becomes part of the residue of Elara’s estate. If there is no residuary clause, it would pass as intestate property. However, assuming a will is in place, the general rule is that a lapsed legacy, if not otherwise provided for or saved by an antilapse statute, falls into the residue of the estate. Since Finn’s descendants are not eligible to take under the antilapse statute due to their absence, and there is no indication of a residuary clause in the provided information that would direct this specific lapsed gift, the $50,000 would typically be distributed according to the residuary provisions of the will, or if none, as if Elara had died intestate as to that amount. However, the question asks about the direct disposition of the $50,000 gift to Finn. Since Finn predeceased Elara and left no surviving descendants, and the antilapse statute does not apply to Finn’s situation, the gift fails. Without a residuary clause specifically addressing this, or another provision in the will, the lapsed legacy of $50,000 would be handled according to the estate’s residual provisions or intestacy laws for that specific amount if no residue exists. In the context of a multiple-choice question focusing on the immediate fate of the gift, the most accurate answer reflects the failure of the gift due to the beneficiary’s death and the inapplicability of the antilapse statute. The legacy fails and becomes part of the residuary estate.

The scenario describes a situation involving a holographic will, which is a will entirely in the testator’s handwriting. North Dakota law, specifically North Dakota Century Code (NDCC) § 30.1-08-02, addresses holographic wills. This statute states that a will that does not comply with the required formalities for attested wills, but is written entirely in the handwriting of the testator, is valid as a holographic will. The key elements for validity are that the entire will must be in the testator’s handwriting, and it must be signed by the testator. The question focuses on whether a will, entirely in the testator’s handwriting and signed, but lacking witnesses, is valid in North Dakota. Given that NDCC § 30.1-08-02 specifically permits holographic wills under these conditions, the will would be considered valid. The explanation does not involve any calculations. The validity hinges on the statutory definition and requirements for holographic wills in North Dakota.

North Dakota law, specifically under the Uniform Trust Code as adopted and modified in North Dakota (NDCC Chapter 59-12), governs the modification and termination of trusts. A trust can be terminated or modified by the consent of all beneficiaries if the settlor has no remaining interest in the trust and either all beneficiaries consent to the modification or termination, or the court determines that the purposes of the trust have been fulfilled or have become unlawful, against public policy, or impossible to fulfill. Furthermore, a trustee can modify a trust without court approval if the trust instrument permits such modification and the trustee acts in accordance with its terms and fiduciary duties. If the trust instrument does not explicitly grant the trustee modification powers, or if the modification affects the trustee’s duties or compensation, court approval may be necessary. In the scenario presented, the trust instrument grants the trustee the power to modify the trust to achieve its original intent, provided the modification does not substantially impair the beneficiary’s beneficial interest. The trustee’s proposed change to distribute the corpus to the grandchildren upon reaching age 25, instead of age 30, is a modification aimed at fulfilling the settlor’s intent of providing for the grandchildren’s financial security at an earlier, potentially more impactful, stage of their lives. This modification does not appear to substantially impair the beneficial interest of the current income beneficiary, Elara, as her income stream remains unaffected. Therefore, under North Dakota law, the trustee can implement this modification without seeking consent from Elara or court approval, as long as it aligns with the trust’s overall purpose and the settlor’s intent as expressed in the trust document. The key is the trustee’s express power to modify and the absence of substantial impairment to the existing beneficiary’s interest.

The scenario involves a testator, Ms. Albright, who executed a will in North Dakota. Subsequently, she married Mr. Henderson. A key provision of North Dakota law, specifically North Dakota Century Code (NDCC) § 30.1-08-04, addresses the effect of marriage on a pre-existing will. This statute states that if a testator marries after executing a will, the surviving spouse receives the same share of the estate that they would have received if the testator had died intestate, unless the will provides for the spouse or the spouse is provided for in a way that was intended to be in lieu of any testamentary provision, or the spouse waived their right to a share in a written contract. In this case, Ms. Albright’s will predates her marriage to Mr. Henderson, and the will makes no provision for him. There is no indication of a waiver or a contract. Therefore, Mr. Henderson is entitled to the share he would receive as if Ms. Albright had died intestate. Under North Dakota’s intestacy laws, as codified in NDCC § 30.1-04-02, a surviving spouse receives the entire net estate if there is no surviving descendant of the decedent. Since Ms. Albright has no surviving descendants, Mr. Henderson, as the surviving spouse, is entitled to the entire net estate.

In North Dakota, the Uniform Trust Code, as adopted and modified by North Dakota law, governs the administration of trusts. Specifically, NDCC § 56-04-101 defines a “trust” and outlines the requirements for its creation. A trust is generally established through a written instrument, such as a trust agreement or a will. The key elements for a valid express trust are intent to create a trust, ascertainable trust property, and a definite beneficiary. The Uniform Trust Code also addresses the duties of a trustee, including the duty of loyalty and the duty to administer the trust prudently. NDCC § 56-04-801 mandates that a trustee must administer the trust solely in the interest of the beneficiaries. Furthermore, the concept of “trust property” or “corpus” is crucial; it must be specific and identifiable. A general statement of intent to provide for a beneficiary without specifying particular assets does not create a valid trust. The scenario presented involves a written document expressing a clear intention to hold property for the benefit of a named individual, with specific assets identified. This aligns with the fundamental requirements for establishing an express trust under North Dakota law. The absence of a formal trust agreement does not preclude the creation of a trust if the testamentary intent is clear and the statutory elements are met.

In North Dakota, the concept of a holographic will, entirely written and signed by the testator in their own handwriting, is not generally recognized as a valid testamentary instrument under the North Dakota Century Code (NDCC). While NDCC § 30.1-08-02(1) permits wills to be executed by signing in the presence of two witnesses, it does not provide an exception for holographic wills. Therefore, a will that is entirely in the testator’s handwriting but lacks the required witness attestation would fail to meet the statutory requirements for a valid will in North Dakota. The purpose of the witness requirement is to provide evidence of the testator’s intent and to guard against fraud or undue influence. Without this safeguard, such a document is considered an invalid will.