In re Estate of Sullivan, 868 N.W.2d 750 (Minn. Ct. App. 2015)
Esther Sullivan executed her will in January 2006. The will was properly notarized and had the required two witnesses. Esther divided her estate between her grandson, Joseph, a former employee, Tara Jean. The nature of the employment was not disclosed by the court, but Tara Jean was named as personal representative of the estate. She would be responsible for collecting the estate’s assets, filing the tax and probate forms, and distributing the assets.
By 2008 Esther had a change of heart. On a photocopy of the original will, she wrote across the top “[t]he Will dated January 19, 2006 is void and to be replace[d] with this and all written in changes.” A variety of alterations were penciled in, the most consequential of which was naming Joseph the personal representative instead of Tara Jean.
Not yet completely satisfied with her handiwork, in October 2010 Esther downloaded a will form and completed it by hand. This time, in addition to naming Joseph as personal representative, she made him the sole heir of all of her property, “after her debts are payed (sic).” Interestingly, Tara Jean witnessed Esther’s signature on the 2010 will.
After Esther died, Tara Jean offered the 2006 will for probate. Joseph objected, and he submitted the 2008 and 2010 alternatives as being more consistent with Esther’s final intentions for her property.
Both the lower court and then the appellate court held that the statutes governing wills must be strictly adhered to. The same formalities that apply to creating a will apply equally to its revocation. Neither the 2008 nor the 2010 will was executed with sufficient witnesses to Ester’s signature, so they failed the test. Alternatively, the appellate court held, a will may be revoked by a “revocatory act on the will,” including “burning, tearing, canceling, obliterating, or destroying the will or any part of it․” Such an act must be done to the original will, not to a photocopy of it.
Without the required witnesses, the 2008 and 2010 documents amounted to nothing more than notes for making a future will.
During the appeal, Joseph argued that Tara Jean had breached her fiduciary duty to the estate by offering the 2006 will for probate when she herself was a witness to the 2010 attempted revocation. Unfortunately, the Court held, he brought that argument up too late to be considered.
(April 2016)
© 2016 M.A. Co. All rights reserved.
