State the general rule for undue influence in North Dakota. This should be from these binding cases. You need to search them. write down the rule or rules from each case and then take the rules from each of these cases and synthesize them in a rule section.

ERICKSON v. OLSEN

Cite as 844 N.W.2d 585 (N.D. 2014)

Perry v. Reinke

Cite as 570 N.W.2d 224 (N.D. 1997)

Matter of Estate of Polda

Cite as 349 N.W.2d 11 (N.D. 1984)

In re Estate Of Vestre

Cite as 799 N.W.2d 379 (N.D. 2011)

596 N. D. 844 NORTH WESTERN REPORTER, 2d SERIES intent to both Curtis and Bobby clearly a few months before the evaluation, who establish to this Court that improper would not speculate beyond that time influence was exerted. frame, but who testified that the indicia The final factor to consider is whether relied upon by the district court are signs there was submission to the overmaster- of impairment. ing effect of such unlawful conduct. . . . Once again, this Court finds that the [129] In its findings of fact, conclu evidence, as stated above, establishes sions of law, and order for judgment, the that the transfers of real property and district court correctly applied the relevant money in the form of checks was the law to each of the four issues and clearly result of the overmastering effect of articulated the bases for its findings. Bobby's, Dean's and Sue's conduct. The While this Court may have viewed the only evidence provided to this Court re- facts differently had we been sitting as the garding Clarence's desire as to sell his trier of fact, our standard of review on real property or transfer the money was appeal is clearly erroneous. There is evi- from those who benefitted directly. Yet, dentiary support for the district court's even their respective testimony reflected findings. The district court chose to view contradictions with Clarence's expressed the evidence in a light that favored Curtis intent to treat all of the children the Erickson's case. That view was permissi- same. ble based on the record before the district The district court therefore determined court, and we will not substitute our judge that "the warranty deeds and checks were ment for that of the district court. We created and signed as a result of undue hold the district court's findings of fact are influence." not clearly erroneous. [128] This case largely consisted of III "he said, she said" evidence which told [17] [130] The appellants' notice of two, very different stories. Curtis Erick- appeal indicates that they are, in part, son's testimony painted Clarence Erickson appealing the district court's order on as an individual who had been experience their Rule 52(b) motion to amend the dis- ing mental deficiencies for several years trict court's findings and judgment. How- and who had been entirely dependent on ever, this Court has held that orders on family members during the period of time Rule 52(b) motions are not appealable. that the transactions and will execution Alliance Pipeline L.P. v. Smith, 2013 ND occurred. Bobby Olsen, Sue Olsen, Dean 117, 19, 833 N.W.2d 464. Therefore, to Olsen, and Marion Bergquist all testified the extent the appellants' appeal is based that they never saw any decline in Clar- on the district court's Rule 52(b) order, ence Erickson's mental health at any point that portion of the appellants' appeal is before his death and that Clarence Erick- dismissed. son favored them in the monetary and real estate transactions and in his will because IV of their excellent relationships with him. The only opinion offered by a non-party [131] The district court's findings that was the deposition of Dr. Brooks, who undue influence was exerted over Clarence opined that it was very likely Clarence Erickson when executing his will, that Erickson would have been impaired up to Clarence Erickson lacked testamentary ca- ERICKSON v. OLSEN N. D. 597 Cite as 844 N.W.2d 585 (N.D. 2014) pacity to execute a will, that undue influ- [1 32] GERALD W. VANDE WALLE, ence was exerted over Clarence Erickson C.J., LISA FAIR McEVERS, DANIEL J. when transferring money and real proper- CROTHERS, and DALE V. ty to the appellants, and that Clarence SANDSTROM, JJ., concur. Erickson lacked capacity to transfer mon- ey and real property, were not clearly erroneous. We affirm the district court OKEY NUMBER SYSTEM judgment. The appellants' appeal of the district court's Rule 52(b) order is dis- missed.\fMATTER OE CULATE OF BOLDA and bokding that publication of will was srene it event's reference to filing of petiting toe PRICKSTAD. CJ, and YANDE WALLE L. Wills Doesce is a question of back, and burden of Cheater POLINA Petition Hohenstern and Shirley Wonder. Respondents and Appellants April 24. 1964. 12 ND. 249 NORTH WESTERN REPORTER. 24 SERIES Lake Kres & Then army make a will. that there were an, tr. Ir. Parksto Christen M. Archon finding of to stand andhess vas ant ERICKSTAD, Chief Justice. hope pawns city of the County Ceart of party and beatater, coupled with the same woods Portal representative of the estate. party pootkipating in the perparation af We the will and receiving a benefit by tos bever Police thed on May 24. 1963, She berrea. since pres empties would have effect arrived by six children Birtest Pol who takes care of testator during will parts so "Tautomerkary caparky is a question of 4. With 82 married and bendes of proving otherwise bestative. The objections were booed upon is upas the contents a. With all bestarrestery capacity, wed tendue tarseatary capacity at thee the taxested ary 6 1960 At the time, she was Being Court did Dos err in There in the family farm home Chester cation of will was unseriswary. NDCC the barred and they provided care and was entitled "order for forsil probusts of from Formean to come to the farm and 345 NORTHE WESTERN BENINTER 24 SK Warner. 245 N.w.ad 486- pelberts to repget their allegation of MATTER GE ESTATE DY POLI the smart erred in holding that as public. 16 N. D. 349 NORTH WESTERN REPORTER. 24 SERIES The formwithme for savesting of s with of lasky Pakh are afterrand. The court be ou tre in betting there publi STATE of North Dakota, Plaintiff had Appelle. part of North Dakota May 16, 1564. undercal probais." ty Court of Cala County, East Central Jut " feral probele by the court coursel and chl District, Donald J. Cones, J., grafting winded defendant's motion to derian charges of Produce of Wal- Pederson, J., fled dimething opinion