N.D. 497, 503, 253 N.W. 856, 859 (1934); 38 Am. Jur. 2d Gifts § 15 (2010). Life estate interests in real property are excluded when calculating an applicant’s available assets. N.D. Admin. Code § 75-02-02.1-28(21). Therefore the agency could only claim Shirley Bleick’s assets included income from the life estate. However, the evidence relied upon by the agency shows that since 1988 Brian Bleiek treated Shirley Bleick’s life estate property and income as his own. No evidence relied on by the agency for its decision indicates Shirley Bleiek intended in 1988 that the transfer to Brian Bleiek as anything other than permanent, and the agency’s supposition to the contrary does not constitute evidence. See, e.g., Pfeiffer v. N.D. Workmen’s Comp. Bureau, 57 N.D. 326, 221 N.W. 894, 897 (1928) (<HOLDING>); Foss v. N.D. Workmen’s Comp. Bureau, 214
holding that mere conjecture or speculation is insufficient under a preponderance standard holding a claimant must prove entitlement to benefits by the preponderance of the evidence which is not sustained by mere surmise or conjecture holding that a claimant must demonstrate by a preponderance of the evidence entitlement to an administrative claim holding that a court may not engage in conjecture or surmise in determining the offense for which a defendant was convicted holding that a factual finding must be supported by more than mere surmise or suspicion