North Dakota Supreme Court weighs testamentary capacity, undue influence in Connolly estate appeal

Bismarck — The North Dakota Supreme Court heard oral arguments in the appeal of the estate of Frances Connolly, file number 20240230, focusing on whether Connolly had sufficient testamentary capacity when she signed a 2021 will, whether her son Sean Connolly unduly influenced that document, and whether the district court improperly excluded financial records from the trial. After arguments from both sides the court took the case under advisement.

Appellant counsel Asa Burke told the justices that the record shows Frances Connolly suffered worsening memory loss and confusion beginning in 2017 and that evidence presented at the three‑day bench trial in March 2024 supports reversal. "The medical record says she has dementia. The medical record says she is confused. She is forgetful," Burke said, summarizing testimony and records his clients introduced to challenge capacity. Burke said Connolly never had the opportunity to demonstrate recognition of the "natural objects of her bounty" at the attorney meeting because her son Sean was present and, he says, participated in the discussion.

Burke argued that Sean arranged the estate‑planning appointments, attended substantial portions of the meeting with attorney Weber, and that a draft will was mailed to Sean's address rather than to Frances. Burke said his clients discovered bank records and a spreadsheet prepared by one child who is a CPA showing transfers totaling "something like $90,000" from accounts owned or controlled by Frances into accounts owned or controlled by Sean between 2014 and 2017; those records were excluded by the district court and, Burke urged, should have been admitted.

Aristan Johnson, representing Sean Connolly, responded that a district court's factual findings are presumed correct and that this appeal asks the court to reweigh credibility and evidence. "A district court's findings of fact are presumed to be correct," Johnson said, citing precedent and arguing that the witnesses who saw Frances on the day she signed the will testified she had sufficient capacity and was "very engaged." Johnson urged that the transfers identified by the contestants were years before the will and, by the district court's determination, not shown to be relevant evidence of undue influence.

Both sides addressed undue‑influence factors the trial court applied: whether Frances was susceptible to influence, whether Sean had opportunity and disposition to exert influence, and whether the will's result appeared to be the product of undue influence. Burke pointed to testimony and descriptions in the record of long‑running family dynamics and instances he described as evidence of Sean's violent tendencies and Frances's fear. Johnson countered that the record contains conflicting testimony and law requires more than suspicion to overturn the trial court's ultimate findings.

On the evidentiary issue, Johnson noted that the district court excluded two exhibits (identified at trial as exhibits 110 and 111) and the summary of those documents under Rule 1006 requirements for summaries of voluminous records; he argued the court did not abuse discretion in excluding them. Burke asked the justices to consider equitable fairness because the documents were in Sean's possession and were discovered by contestants only shortly before trial.

The justices asked clarifying questions during both counsel's presentations. After rebuttal and concluding arguments the court announced it would take the case under advisement and adjourned the session until 10:45.

Background: The case was tried as a bench trial over three days in March 2024. Frances Connolly, described in the record as a ranch owner and former licensed psychologist, had been a parent figure to a large blended family (counsel described 13 children, including biological, adopted and "quasi adopted" relations). The contested will left the estate to Sean Connolly with a contingent disposition to Frances's children; Burke noted two persons the family considered children, Kelly Blindauer and Leanne Barton, were not included in the will and argued that omission was probative of capacity and undue influence. The district court found the will valid and concluded contestants had not met their burden to show lack of testamentary capacity or undue influence.

The Supreme Court will issue a written decision after taking the record and arguments under advisement.