In re the Estate of Butler
803 N.W.2d 393
Minn.2011Background
- Butler died in 2008; CDs total about $100,000 opened 2000, renewed 2003; CDs list Patrick Butler or Maureen J. Kissack with survivorship language; bank forms indicate Joint Account With Survivorship; Kissack as personal representative claimed CDs were nonprobate assets not part of estate; district court initially held CDs were probate assets and subject to the will; respondents argued Butler intended equal distribution among children and stepchildren; the MPAA creates a statutory presumption of survivorship and requires specific reference to the joint account to overcome; the court of appeals affirmed the district court’s denial of Kissack’s JMOL, leading to review by the Minnesota Supreme Court
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Standard to overcome MPAA presumption | Kissack: overcome requires specific reference to the CDs | Respondents: broader evidence suffices to show different intention | Qualifying clause modifies both disposer options and intent; use strict, specific reference standard |
| Whether respondents showed clear and convincing evidence specifically referring to the CDs | Kissack: evidence lacks specific reference to the CDs | Respondents rely on will and related testimony to show intended equal division | No; evidence not specific to the CDs fails the statutory standard |
| Effect of will disposition and form references under MPAA | Kissack: will lacks specific reference to CDs; cannot bind banks | Respondents contest the relevance of the CD form | Will dispositions must specifically refer to the joint account to alter its survivorship |
| Court’s interpretation of MPAA 524.6-204(a) governing survivorship | Kissack: proper standard favors surviving joint owner | Respondents argue broader proof is enough | Court adopts interpretation that qualifying phrase applies to both alternatives; presumption overcomes only with specific reference |
Key Cases Cited
- Gassler v. State, 787 N.W.2d 575 (Minn. 2010) (clear and convincing standard guidance in evidence analysis)
- Larson v. State, 790 N.W.2d 700 (Minn. 2010) (statutory construction rules; last antecedent rule discussed)
- Woodhall v. State, 738 N.W.2d 357 (Minn. 2007) (grammatical interpretation in statute context)
- Barnhart v. Thomas, 540 U.S. 20 (U.S. 2003) (last antecedent rule and interpretive principle)
- Rutchick v. Salute, 288 Minn. 258, 179 N.W.2d 607 (Minn. 1970) (pre-MPAA gift theory; distinguished after MPAA adoption)