In the Matter of: Trust Agreement of Don D. Henyan Created Under Agreement Dated May 1, 2006, as Amended., A16-504

Background

Don Henyan created a revocable trust in 2006, amended it in Jan. 2013, and conveyed tangible personal property into the trust; the amendment directed distributions (including $250,000 to daughter Molly Baglio for caregiving) and authorized trustee payments for debts/expenses.
In Jan. 2013 Henyan executed a statutory power of attorney appointing Baglio as attorney-in-fact (durable) and named her personal representative in his will; he died Feb. 25, 2013.
After death Baglio spent funds from a Bremer Bank checking account, later transferred the account balance to the trust, prepared a final accounting (Feb. 12, 2014), then filed two supplemental accountings revising valuations, fees, and certain allocations.
The trust instrument’s §6.3.6 said a beneficiary’s failure to object in writing within 90 days after receipt of an accounting constitutes a release “with respect to all transactions disclosed by the accounts.” Baglio’s counsel sent the original final accounting to Melissa Henyan; Melissa did not object within 90 days.
Melissa filed a petition under Minn. Stat. §501B.16 alleging breaches by Baglio as trustee and under §523.26 alleging breaches as attorney-in-fact; Baglio moved for summary judgment on both her petition (to approve supplemental accountings and terminate the trust) and Melissa’s petition; the district court granted summary judgment for Baglio and this appeal followed.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (Henyan)	Defendant's Argument (Baglio)	Held
Whether Melissa’s objections to trustee accountings were barred by the trust’s 90‑day release clause	The 90‑day period should apply to each accounting separately, so Melissa’s timely objections to transactions first disclosed in supplemental accountings are preserved	The 90‑day clause released objections because the original accounting disclosed the relevant transactions; later accountings did not revive objections	Court: Interpret §6.3.6 to permit a 90‑day objection window for each newly disclosed transaction; objections to transactions disclosed in the original final accounting were barred, but objections to transactions first disclosed in supplemental accountings were timely — however Melissa failed to raise genuine fact issues on most of those items, so summary judgment still proper.
Whether Melissa raised fact issues showing trustee breaches (e.g., unreasonable fees, improper valuations, improper tax allocations)	The supplemental accountings and certain transactions raise questions of impropriety that warrant trial	Baglio showed the transactions were ordinary, necessary, reasonable, and Melissa failed to identify specific factual disputes or rebut Baglio’s explanations	Held: Melissa did not identify genuine issues of material fact on these items; summary judgment for Baglio affirmed.
Whether objections to Baglio’s pre‑death acts as attorney‑in‑fact (use of checking account and credit card) were barred or insufficient	Melissa argued Baglio used the account and card for personal gifts and improper expenditures, possibly in bad faith	Baglio testified expenditures were at the decedent’s direction or for his benefit; no contradictory evidence; even if 90‑day rule didn’t apply, Melissa lacks evidence of bad faith	Held: Summary judgment proper — undisputed testimony shows expenditures were authorized/beneficial; no bad‑faith evidence.
Whether Baglio abused her power as attorney‑in‑fact after decedent’s death	Melissa asserted post‑death use of accounts and cards was abusive	Baglio’s attorney‑in‑fact authority ended at death; she was personal representative and expenditures for estate (e.g., utilities) benefitted estate	Held: No legal basis for post‑death attorney‑in‑fact claim; expenditures were proper estate administration.

Key Cases Cited

Frieler v. Carlson Mktg. Grp., 751 N.W.2d 558 (Minn. 2008) (standard for genuine issue of material fact on summary judgment)
Commerce Bank v. West Bend Mut. Ins. Co., 870 N.W.2d 770 (Minn. 2015) (appellate review standard for summary judgment legal conclusions)
In re Stisser Grantor Trust, 818 N.W.2d 495 (Minn. 2012) (trust‑instrument interpretation principles)
Norwest Bank, N.A. v. Beckler, 663 N.W.2d 571 (Minn. App. 2003) (ascertaining grantor intent from the document as a whole)
In re Estate of Arend, 373 N.W.2d 338 (Minn. App. 1985) (use of extrinsic evidence for ambiguous trust language)
Erickson v. Van Web Equip. Co., 132 N.W.2d 814 (Minn. 1964) (standard for attorney‑in‑fact duties and liability)
Thiele v. Stich, 425 N.W.2d 580 (Minn. 1988) (preservation requirement for appellate review)