In Re GUARDIANSHIP and CONSERVATORSHIP OF Helen Louise DURAND, Ward/Protected Person
859 N.W.2d 780
| Minn. | 2015Background
- William Krebes died in 2009; his wife Helen Durand became a party to his Dakota County probate. Lynn Krebes-Lufkin was appointed personal representative of Krebes’s estate.
- Durand’s children petitioned for a conservatorship in Hennepin County, which found Durand lacked capacity to manage financial decisions and appointed Alternate Decision Makers, Inc. (ADMI) as conservator.
- ADMI sought court authorization under Minn. Stat. § 524.2-212 to file an elective-share claim on Durand’s behalf; the Hennepin court initially granted authorization but later vacated the order and set an evidentiary hearing after a challenge by Krebes-Lufkin.
- ADMI moved for summary judgment, arguing § 524.2-212 (requiring court approval before a conservator may exercise a protected person’s right of election) violated equal protection by treating protected spouses differently than unimpaired spouses.
- The district court agreed with ADMI and struck the statute; the court of appeals reversed, holding protected and non-protected spouses are not similarly situated. The Minnesota Supreme Court granted review.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Minn. Stat. § 524.2-212 violates equal protection by treating protected spouses differently when exercising the elective share | ADMI: Conservatees are similarly situated to unimpaired spouses; statute impermissibly discriminates and the right of election should be automatic | Krebes-Lufkin: Statute rationally protects vulnerable protected persons and decedent’s testamentary wishes by requiring court oversight of conservators’ elections | Held: Classification is subject to rational-basis review and is constitutional; statute survives equal protection challenge |
| Whether the right of election is a fundamental right requiring heightened scrutiny | ADMI: Right of election is significant and should not be restricted without strict scrutiny | Krebes-Lufkin: Right of election is statutory, not constitutional, so no fundamental-right protection | Held: Right of election is not fundamental; rational-basis review applies |
| Whether “protected persons” warrant heightened scrutiny as a suspect or quasi-suspect class | ADMI: Conservatees similarly situated to others and merit greater protection | Krebes-Lufkin: Conservatees are distinguishable due to impairments; not a suspect class | Held: “Protected persons” are not a suspect or quasi-suspect class; rational-basis review applies (analogous to mentally disabled in Cleburne) |
| If rational-basis applies, whether § 524.2-212 meets Minnesota’s three-part rational-basis test | ADMI: No reasonable connection between classification and statutory goals; classification arbitrary | Krebes-Lufkin: Legislature legitimately aimed to protect vulnerable persons and balance testamentary intent and needs; court oversight is rational | Held: § 524.2-212 satisfies Minnesota’s rational-basis factors (genuine distinction, relevant connection, legitimate state purpose) |
Key Cases Cited
- City of Cleburne v. Cleburne Living Center, 473 U.S. 432 (U.S. 1985) (declined to treat mental disability as a suspect classification)
- State v. Russell, 477 N.W.2d 886 (Minn. 1991) (describing Minnesota’s more exacting rational-basis test)
- Wegan v. Village of Lexington, 309 N.W.2d 273 (Minn. 1981) (articulating three-part rational-basis factors applied in Minnesota)
- In re Welfare of B.A.H., 845 N.W.2d 158 (Minn. 2014) (cautioning courts to exercise restraint before declaring statutes unconstitutional)
- McElroy v. Taylor, 977 S.W.2d 929 (Ky. 1998) (illustrating that reasons motivating an election need not be judicially scrutinized for unimpaired spouses)