Probate & Trust Law Section Conference Manual ... - Minnesota CLE

I. UNIFORM PROBATE CODE
A. Effect of Fraud and Evasion: 1-106
1. In re Estate of McKee, 283 P.3d 749 (Idaho 2012). The discovery of
fraud in connection with the probate of an estate does not toll the
statute of limitations for commencement of probate proceedings, but
relief may be separately sought from the perpetrator of the fraud.
Decedent executed a holographic will in June 1994 which gave decedent’s
entire estate to daughter. Decedent died in December 1994. Despite
decedent’s husband being aware of the holographic will at all times, he did
not provide it to daughter until 2004. After discovery of the existence of
the will, daughter requested that the will be informally probated and
suggested that tardy probate and appointment of a personal representative
were authorized because daughter did not learn of the will’s whereabouts
until 2004. Decedent’s son argued that the will could not be probated
because Idaho Code § 15-3-108 requires a will to be probated within three
years of the decedent’s death. Relying on Idaho Code § 15-1-106,
daughter argued that the will may be probated because she commenced
proceedings within two years of discovering the fraudulent concealment of
the will. That section provides that, whenever fraud has been perpetrated
in connection with any probate proceeding or if fraud is used to avoid or
circumvent the provisions or purposes of the probate code, an injured
party may obtain appropriate relief against the perpetrator of the fraud or
restitution from any person benefitting from the fraud; any proceeding
under § 15-1-106 must be commenced within two years after the
discovery of the fraud. Daughter argued that § 15-1-106 extends the
three-year requirement in § 15-3-108 for commencement of probate to an
additional two years following the discovery of the fraud. The court
disagreed. It held that, while § 1-106 allows for the commencement of an
action against the perpetrator of the fraud up to two years following the
discovery of fraud, it does not toll the three year statute of limitations in §
15-3-108. As a result, daughter is barred from commencing probate
proceedings, but she may still seek appropriate relief against the
perpetrator of the fraud.
B. Intestate Estate; Share of the Spouse: 2-102
1. Pestrikoff v. Hoff, 278 P.3d 281 (Alaska 2012). The equitable
distribution framework for divorce proceedings does not apply in the
probate context; title concepts determine which assets are included in
decedent’s estate. Decedent died intestate survived by her husband and
three adult children from a previous marriage. Using marital funds, the
husband had acquired a boat for a fishing charter business during his
marriage to decedent, but the boat and charter business were titled in his
name alone. Relying on principles of equitable distribution for divorce
cases, decedent’s children argued that half the value of the boat and