In re the Estate of Roger Abrahamson

• Court: Court of Appeals of Minnesota
• Decided: May 13, 2024
• Docket: a231127
• Status: Published

Opinion

This opinion is nonprecedential except as provided by Minn. R. Civ. App. P. 136.01, subd. 1(c).

STATE OF MINNESOTA IN COURT OF APPEALS A23-1127

In re the Estate of Roger Abrahamson, Deceased.

Filed May 13, 2024 Affirmed Ede, Judge

Anoka County District Court File No. 02-PR-21-380

Timothy R. Maher, Joseph D. Kantor, Guzior Armbrecht Maher, St. Paul, Minnesota (for appellant Michelle Stark)

George R. Serdar, Jacklyn R. Vasquez, Messerli & Kramer P.A., Minneapolis, Minnesota (for respondent Homeward Bound, Inc.)

Philip R. Schenkenberg, O. Joseph Balthazor Jr., Taft Stettinius & Hollister LLP, Minneapolis, Minnesota (for respondent Union Gospel Mission Twin Cities)

Considered and decided by Reyes, Presiding Judge; Ede, Judge; and Smith, John,

Judge. ∗

NONPRECEDENTIAL OPINION

EDE, Judge

Appellant challenges the order admitting decedent’s will to probate, arguing that the

district court erred by finding that the will was validly executed. We affirm.

∗ Retired judge of the Minnesota Court of Appeals, serving by appointment pursuant to Minn. Const. art. VI, § 10. FACTS

This appeal arises from the admission of decedent Roger Abrahamson’s will to

probate following his death in January 2021. Respondents Homeward Bound Inc. and

Union Gospel Mission Twin Cities (Union Gospel) are charitable organizations that are

beneficiaries of the will. Appellant Michelle Stark (née Abrahamson) is Abrahamson’s

daughter and sole surviving child.

In May 2021, Homeward Bound petitioned to formally probate Abrahamson’s will.

The three-page document gives Abrahamson’s home to Homeward Bound, his U.S. Bank

accounts and a pension to Union Gospel, and a workers’ compensation claim to Courage

Center. 1 The will states, “Under no circumstance can Michelle Abrahamson, my daughter,

break this will.” As shown below, the third page contains: Abrahamson’s undated

signature; notary Reinhard Clausen’s signature and notary stamp, dated December 3, 2013;

and an indecipherable signature, dated December 4, 2013.

Stark objected to Homeward Bound’s petition on the basis that the will was not

validly executed and, in October 2021, petitioned for formal adjudication of intestacy.

1 Courage Center was not involved in these proceedings.

2 After Homeward Bound and Stark could not agree on the appointment of a personal

representative for the estate, the district court appointed Stark as the special administrator.

Stark moved for summary judgment, contending that Homeward Bound could not

prove there were two witnesses to the will. The district court denied summary judgment,

concluding that there were disputed material facts about whether there was a second

signature, whether there was a second witness to the will, and whether the will

encompassed all three pages.

In November 2022, Homeward Bound, Stark, and Union Gospel appeared at a

hearing. Homeward Bound informed the district court that it had entered into a mediated

settlement agreement with Stark and sought court approval. Union Gospel, however, was

not part of the mediation or the settlement agreement. And, at the time of the mediation, an

inventory of the estate had not been completed, and neither Homeward Bound nor Union

Gospel were aware of the value of the estate’s assets. As a result, the district court ordered

Stark, as special administrator of the estate, to conduct an inventory.

The inventory valued the home at $250,000 and the estate’s accounts at

$197,631.31. Following the inventory, Union Gospel filed a petition to formally probate

the will. The matter proceeded to an evidentiary hearing, held in February 2023. Homeward

Bound’s counsel appeared but did not participate in the hearing.

At the hearing, Stark moved for a directed verdict, asserting that there was no

evidence about the second witness. After the district court denied that motion, Stark

testified and presented testimony from a handwriting expert. Stark said that she did not

know who may have made the indecipherable signature, that she last spoke with her father

3 in 2004, and that she received some letters from him “prior to his death.” The handwriting

expert testified that she did not know whether the indecipherable marking was, in fact, a

signature, but she also said that “[i]t could be a stylized signature.”

Union Gospel presented testimony from Clausen, who confirmed that he signed and

notarized the will. Clausen said that he works at a UPS store, that Abrahamson came to the

store regularly before his death, and that, although he did not remember the specifics of the

interaction with Abrahamson, he would not have executed the document without watching

Abrahamson sign. Clausen further testified that he remembered signing the third page of

the will and that it bore his notary stamp. The district court received several exhibits,

including a copy of the will, Union Gospel’s response to requests for admissions, and an

excerpt from the handwriting expert’s report.

In June 2023, the district court admitted the will to probate. The district court found

that the will did not comply with the requirements for a self-proved will. The district court

nevertheless concluded that Union Gospel fulfilled the evidentiary requirements for a

contested proceeding of a will that is not self-proved and that Union Gospel “met its burden

of proof that the will was validly made and executed according to the statutes of

Minnesota.” The district court also directed Stark to file an accounting of her work for the

estate.

Stark appeals.

4 DECISION

The interpretation of the Uniform Probate Code (UPC) presents a question of law

that we review de novo. See In re Est. of Tomczik, 992 N.W.2d 691, 695 (Minn. 2023). But

“[w]hether a will is executed in a manner prescribed by statute is a question of fact[,]” and

“findings of fact will be disturbed only if clearly erroneous.” See In re Est. of Sullivan, 868

N.W.2d 750, 752 (Minn. 2015) (quotation omitted).

To be validly executed, a will must be: (1) in writing; (2) signed by the testator; and

(3) “signed by at least two individuals, each of whom signed within a reasonable time after

witnessing either the signing of the will” by the testator “or the testator’s acknowledgment

of that signature or acknowledgment of the will.” Minn. Stat. § 524.2-502 (2022). Under

Minnesota law, the evidentiary requirements for contested proceedings are governed by

Minnesota Statutes section 524.3-406 (2022). For wills that are not self-proved, 2 “the

testimony of at least one of the attesting witnesses, if within the state competent and able

to testify, is required.” Minn. Stat. § 524.3-406(a). A will proponent has the burden to

establish “prima facie proof of due execution.” Minn. Stat. § 524.3-407 (2022).

Stark challenges the district court’s order admitting the will to probate and its

decision that the will was validly executed. 3 In particular, Stark argues: (1) that the district

2 See Minn. Stat. § 524.2-504 (2022) (setting forth the requirements for a self-proved will). Minnesota Statutes section 524.2-504 was amended in 2023. 2023 Minn. Laws ch. 21, § 2, at 120-22. The 2022 version of the statute was in effect at the time of the district court’s decision to admit the will to probate. The 2023 amendment does not affect the resolution of this case. 3 Stark also argues that the district court erred by denying her motion for summary judgment. This court’s review is limited to “the order from which the appeal is taken” and

5 court made clearly erroneous factual findings; and (2) that the district court misapplied the

law by probating the will without extrinsic evidence about the second witness. We address

each contention in turn.

Finding of Due Execution

Stark argues that the district court’s findings related to due execution were clearly

erroneous. We are unpersuaded.

When reviewing for clear error, appellate courts (1) view the evidence in the light

most favorable to the findings; (2) do not reweigh the evidence; (3) do not find their own

facts; and (4) do not reconcile conflicting evidence. See In re Civ. Commitment of Kenney,

963 N.W.2d 214, 221-22 (Minn. 2021). “When the record reasonably supports the findings

at issue on appeal, it is immaterial that the record might also provide a reasonable basis for

inferences and findings to the contrary.” Id. at 223 (quotation omitted).

The district court found that Abrahamson, Clausen, and an unknown second witness

signed the third page of the will, in compliance with the statutory requirements. See Minn.

Stat. § 524.2-502. In so finding, the district court explained that “[t]he only reasonable

conclusion is that the third page of the Will, which does contain the designated witness

signature areas, is a necessary and intended part of the overall document.” The district court

also noted that “the third page of [the will] cannot reasonably be interpreted as a standalone

“any order involving the merits or affecting the judgment.” Minn. R. Civ. App. P. 103.04. Because the district court denied summary judgment based on disputed material facts, which were resolved following the evidentiary hearing, the denial of summary judgment does not affect the order admitting the will to probate. See Bahr v. Boise Cascade Corp., 766 N.W.2d 910, 918 (Minn. 2009). As a result, the denial of summary judgment is not within the scope of our review. See id.

6 document” and that “Abrahamson’s directive that his daughter Michelle Abrahamson (now

known as ‘Michelle Stark’) not ‘break this will’ supports an interpretation that all three

pages taken together make up ‘this will,’ as a single testamentary instrument.” The district

court further explained that, based on the location of the signature “under the word

‘Witness’ and to the left of a date,” the visual evidence strongly suggested “that the

individual who made the marks on the third page intended to make a signature.” The district

court found that “Abrahamson purposefully sought out Clausen to witness the Will on

December 3, 2013” and that “[t]he inferences drawn from the document suggest that

Abrahamson understood he needed a second signature and obtained a second signature the

following day.”

We discern no clear error in the district court’s well-reasoned findings, which are

fully supported by the record. See Kenney, 963 N.W.2d at 223. Stark’s contrary

assertions—that only the third page with the signatures was not part of the will and that a

second witness did not sign the will—require reweighing the evidence and adopting

alternative inferences, which we may not do. See id. We therefore reject Stark’s argument

that the district court clearly erred in finding that the will was validly executed.

Extrinsic-Evidence Requirement

Stark next argues that the district court misapplied the law by probating the will

without extrinsic evidence of the second witness. We disagree.

Stark first challenges the district court’s determination that Union Gospel satisfied

the evidentiary requirements for a contested proceeding under Minnesota Statutes section

524.3-406(a) by presenting Clausen’s testimony. Stark relies on two Minnesota cases—

7 Carlson v. Stover, 126 N.W.2d 784, 785 (Minn. 1964), and In re Larson’s Estate, 73 N.W.

966, 967 (Minn. 1898)—to argue that a will proponent must provide extrinsic evidence

about both witnesses at a contested proceeding. Both Carlson and Larson’s Estate,

however, were decided before Minnesota adopted the UPC, and those cases applied statutes

with different requirements for contested will proceedings than at issue here. See Minn.

Stat. § 525.24 (1961) (providing that, for contested hearings, “all the subscribing witnesses

who are within the state and competent and able to testify shall be produced and

examined”); Minn. Gen. Stat. § 4436 (1894) (requiring testimony from an attesting witness

“that such will was executed according to law, and that the testator had testamentary

capacity”). As a result, both Carlson and Larson’s Estate are inapposite to this proceeding.

The district court did not err by deciding that Clausen’s testimony satisfied the evidentiary

requirements for a contested proceeding. See Minn. Stat. § 524.3-406(a).

Stark also asserts that the district court improperly treated the will as self-proved,

given the lack of extrinsic evidence about the second witness. For self-proved wills,

“compliance with signature requirements for execution is conclusively presumed.” Minn.

Stat. § 524.3-406(b). A conclusive presumption “cannot be overcome by any additional

evidence or argument,” and thus courts must conclude that a signature is valid even if there

is affirmative evidence that a witness did not comply with the statute. See In re Est. of

Zeno, 672 N.W.2d 574, 577-78 (Minn. App. 2003) (quotation omitted). But the district

court’s thorough and reflective order does not suggest that it applied such a presumption.

To the contrary, the district court found that the will did not qualify as a self-proved will

and instead noted that “the location of the mark, the date next to it, and the use of a second

8 pen all support the Court’s conclusion that the second pen markings were a valid signature

barring evidence to the contrary.” 4 The district court therefore determined that Union

Gospel “met its burden of proof that the Will was validly made.” (Emphasis added.) We

conclude that the district court did not err by considering the will’s contents, along with

the other evidence presented at the evidentiary hearing, in deciding that the will was validly

executed.

In sum, the district court did not clearly err by finding that the will was duly

executed and did not misapply the law by admitting Abrahamson’s will to probate without

extrinsic evidence about the second witness. 5

Affirmed.

4 Stark’s reliance on In re Estate of Brooks, 927 P.2d 1024 (Mont. 1996), a case from another UPC jurisdiction, is misplaced. In Brooks, there was affirmative evidence that the will was not validly executed because one purported witness did not comply with the relevant statutory requirements. See Brooks, 927 P.2d at 1027. As a result, Brooks is distinguishable and does not suggest that the UPC requires extrinsic evidence about both witnesses to probate a will. Moreover, although “Minnesota courts may give weight to [other states’] interpretations of a uniform law[,]” their “interpretations of a uniform or similar law are not binding[.]” In re Estate of Holmberg, 823 N.W.2d 875, 880 (Minn. App. 2012) (emphasis added). 5 Stark also argues that the district court erred by discussing her fiduciary duties as special administrator of the estate in the portion of the order directing her to file an accounting. But the district court did not rule that Stark breached any fiduciary duties, and Stark does not dispute the district court’s decision to order an accounting or its authority to do so. We therefore decline to address Stark’s challenge to the district court’s discussion of Stark’s potential breach of fiduciary duties, as it is premature. See Growe v. Simon, 2 N.W.3d 490, 499-500 (Minn. 2024) (explaining that appellate courts “decide present problems, not hypothetical ones” because “[i]ssues which have no existence other than in the realm of future possibility are purely hypothetical and are not justiciable” and “[s]uch issues are not ripe for adjudication” (quotation omitted)).