Wicklund v. Wicklund, 812 N.W.2d 359

Maurice Wicklund died at 94 in 2009 owning North Dakota mineral interests; domicile was Michigan.
Betty Wicklund petitioned for elective share, homestead and exempt property allowances, family allowance, and administration costs as personal representative.
Wicklunds had a joint estate plan: a will and a Living Trust; the will referenced the Trust for administration and distributions.
The Trust named Maurice and Betty as settlors and trustees, with the minerals language describing distributions to Brian Wicklund and Deborah Williams.
Maurice did not convey minerals to the Trust during lifetime; the will provided a pour-over mechanism to transfer minerals to the Trust at death.
District court granted Betty certain Michigan-based allowances and fees, and awarded her North Dakota minerals in cash-equivalent form, despite challenges from the surviving children.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the district court erred in Betty’s elective share and allowances	Wicklund argues the will and Trust show clear intent to pass minerals to children	Wicklund contends the court correctly interpreted Michigan law and the estate plan	Remanded for further findings on elective share and allowances
Whether Michigan law and the will/trust should govern intent and disposition	Wicklund asserts documents should be read together to carry out settlors’ intent	Wicklund contends the district court properly applied controlling law	Remanded to resolve ambiguities with better factual support
Whether mineral interests were properly subject to Trust administration before conveyance	Wicklund claims minerals should have passed to them via the Trust	Wicklund maintains Trust language governs after death	affirmed intent but remanded for detailed factual findings on administration costs and fees
Whether the district court adequately explained costs and fees	Wicklund argues district court failed to itemize costs and fees	Wicklund states court acted within discretion	Remanded for explanation and calculation of administration costs and personal representative fees

Bullis v. Downes, 612 N.W.2d 435 (Mich. App. 2000) (together will and trust construed when forming estate plan)
Duemeland v. Norback, 655 N.W.2d 76 (ND 2003) (will and trust construed together across jurisdictions)
In re Estate and Trust of Anderson, 702 N.W.2d 661 (Minn. Ct. App. 2002) (trust and will interpretation to ascertain settlor’s intent)
Maloney Trust, 377 N.W.2d 791 (Mich. 1985) (intention-driven construction of trusts and wills)
Detroit Bank and Trust Co. v. Grout, 289 N.W.2d 898 (Mich. App. 1980) (construction of estate plans consistent with settlor’s intent)