In re Estate of: Alice I. Engman, Decedent.
A16-805
| Minn. Ct. App. | Jan 30, 2017Background
- Decedent Alice Engman (d. 2013) executed three wills (2008, 2008, and June 1, 2012). The 2012 will omitted daughter Bernice and her children, leaving the estate to daughter Lois and daughter‑in‑law Karon.
- Alice was elderly (99 at death), lived in assisted living, granted Lois power of attorney, and had a long‑standing joint account with Karon who paid some bills.
- Dean Korach (Bernice’s son) filed a petition for formal adjudication of intestacy in 2015 challenging the 2012 will on grounds of lack of testamentary capacity and undue influence by Lois and Karon.
- Lois and Karon moved for summary judgment (arguing the 2012 will is valid) and for sanctions (arguing Dean knew of the will); the district court denied sanctions and initially denied summary judgment but later granted summary judgment for Lois and Karon.
- The district court found that, while opportunity and singular provisions existed, the record lacked evidence that Lois or Karon actively participated in preparing the will or actually exercised dominion over Alice’s free will; it also credited Alice’s stated reasons for the change.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Undue influence over will execution | Dean: Lois or Karon dominated Alice and caused exclusion of Bernice | Lois/Karon: no evidence of active participation or coercion; will reflects Alice’s independent reasons | Summary judgment for Lois/Karon; no genuine issue of material fact for undue influence |
| Credibility of drafting attorney | Dean: attorney’s prior discipline undermines his deposition and it should not be considered | Lois/Karon: attorney’s testimony is corroborated and admissible; no impeachment offered | Court properly considered the attorney’s testimony |
| Existence of confidential relationship | Dean: joint account and POA establish confidential relationship supporting undue influence inference | Lois/Karon: ordinary family assistance does not prove control or abuse of duties | Confidential relationship evidence insufficient alone to show undue influence |
| Sanctions for filing intestacy petition | Lois/Karon: Dean knew of will and pleadings violated Rule 11 / Minn. Stat. §549.211 | Dean: was unaware of June 2012 will; counsel had reasonable basis and consulted probate counsel | District court did not abuse discretion in denying sanctions |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Wilson’s Estate, 223 Minn. 409 (Minn. 1947) (defines undue influence and lists circumstantial evidence types)
- In re Reay’s Estate, 249 Minn. 123 (Minn. 1957) (undue influence requires that testator became a "mere puppet")
- Marsden’s Estate, 217 Minn. 1 (Minn. 1944) (opportunity and motive alone insufficient to prove undue influence)
- Frieler v. Carlson Mktg. Grp., 751 N.W.2d 558 (Minn. 2008) (summary‑judgment standard review)
- Osborne v. Twin Town Bowl, Inc., 749 N.W.2d 367 (Minn. 2008) (mere speculation cannot defeat summary judgment)
- Commerce Bank v. West Bend Mut. Ins. Co., 870 N.W.2d 770 (Minn. 2015) (appellate review of summary‑judgment legal conclusions)