AI Generated Opinion Summaries

This summary was computer-generated without any editorial revision. It is not official, has not been checked for accuracy, and is NOT citable.

Facts

• In May 1995, Lela D. Scott established the Lela D. Scott Living Trust, appointing herself and Mary Margaret Jensen as co-trustees, with Lela as the sole beneficiary during her lifetime. Upon Lela's death in December 2000, the Trust's beneficiaries were her three daughters, who would each inherit a one-third interest. In 1999, Lela entered into a lease for developing a sand and gravel pit on the Trust property, which was accessed via a road across Mary's adjacent property, for which access fees were paid. After Lela's death, Mary became the trustee and executed necessary deeds but failed to provide semi-annual accountings as required by the Trust. Plaintiffs disputed the payment of access fees to Mary and claimed the Trust property could be accessed via another track (paras 3-6).

Procedural History

• [Not applicable or not found]

Parties' Submissions

• Plaintiffs-Appellants: Argued that Mary Jensen, as trustee, breached her fiduciary duty by failing to provide semi-annual accountings, improperly charged access fees, and did not transfer mineral interests timely. They also claimed they owned an easement by prescription across Defendants' lands and challenged the capacity and undue influence related to the Trust and Lease agreements (paras 5-6, 8-9, 20-22, 27-39).
• Defendants-Appellees: Contended that Lela was not incapacitated and did not sign the Trust and Lease under undue influence. They argued that the statute of limitations barred Plaintiffs' claims for breach of fiduciary duty and that Plaintiffs' use of the roadway was permissive, negating the claim for a prescriptive easement (paras 7, 14-16, 20-21, 26-39).

Legal Issues

• Whether the district court erred in granting summary judgment on Plaintiffs’ claims of incapacity and undue influence.
• Whether the district court erred in concluding that Plaintiffs do not own an easement by prescription across Defendants’ lands.
• Whether the district court erred in finding that the statute of limitations barred several of Plaintiffs’ claims for breach of fiduciary duty (para 1).

Disposition

• The Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's rulings and judgment denying the relief requested by the Plaintiffs (para 1).

Reasons

• The Court of Appeals held that the district court did not err in granting summary judgment on the incapacity and undue influence claims, as Plaintiffs failed to raise any issue of material fact warranting a trial on these claims. The court also found that Plaintiffs did not own an easement by prescription across Defendants' lands because their use of the roadway was permissive and not adverse. Furthermore, the court concluded that several of Plaintiffs' claims for breach of fiduciary duty were time-barred by the statute of limitations. The court noted difficulties in addressing the substance of the claims due to the lack of a cogent explanation of the issues and the parties' failure to clarify the trial record (paras 8-39).