Rodney Hogen, et al. v. Steven C. Hogen

Does the decision of the Supreme Court of North Dakota deprive the Petitioners of established property rights in violation of the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States?

Has the State of North Dakota, acting through its judiciary, deprived the Petitioners of their vested property rights without any real opportunity to protect such rights in violation of the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment?

Were Petitioners Marby and Susan Hogen denied vested property interests, in violation of the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, when the State of North Dakota’s judiciary determined the Petitioners’ property interests could be extinguished by a court appointed personal representative although Petitioners Marby and Susan Hogen were never provided notice, nor made parties to the probate proceedings that occurred after their property interests were created?

Did the North Dakota judiciary, under claimed inherent powers, violate Petitioner Rodney Hogen’s First and Fourteenth Amendment constitutional rights when it imposed a sanction that required him to pay all post-remand attorney fees of the personal representative?