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

mother’s estate, had breached fiduciary duties and improperly
administrated estate. Successor personal representative was thereafter
appointed and objected to accountings filed by defendant siblings.
Successor personal representative and defendant siblings entered into a
compromise agreement wherein one of the defendant personal
representatives agreed to disclaim his interest in the estate and the estate
agreed to release all claims against defendant siblings. Only defendant
siblings and Successor personal representative signed the agreement, and
the probate court issued an order approving the settlement. The nine
siblings who were beneficiaries of the estate but did not sign the
agreement appealed the courts approval of the settlement agreement. On
appeal, the court then considered whether the settlement agreement was
“void for failing to be executed by all the necessary parties.” Arizona's
statute for court approval of settlement agreements are identical to sections
3-1101 and 3-1102 of the Uniform Probate Code. The court held that for
the agreement to be binding on all beneficiaries of the estate, all
beneficiaries must have signed the agreement. However, the failure to
obtain the signatures did not void the agreement, as it would still be
binding on those who signed the agreement.
W. Procedure for Securing Court Approval of Compromise: 3-1102
1. Wilson v. Dallas, No. 27227, 2013 WL 697042 (S.C. Feb. 27, 2013).
Beneficiaries may present a compromise agreement, settling claims
against an estate, to the court for approval, but this agreement will
not be approved unless it settles good faith claims and is both just and
reasonable. Legendary singer James Brown died in 2006, leaving the
residue of his estate to the James Brown 2000 Irrevocable Trust via a
pour-over provision in his will. Upon Brown’s death, the 2000
Irrevocable Trust was to be divided into two subtrusts: one was
designated for the education of Brown’s grandchildren; the other was a
charitable trust, which Brown declared should be used solely for the
education of financially needy children. Brown’s will and trust each
contained a no-contest clause and specifically disinherited everyone other
than Brown’s six adult children (who were to receive his tangible personal
property) and those grandchildren identified by name in the will and trust
agreement. Brown also noted in both documents that he was unmarried
and did not want any portion of his estate to go to any former or future
spouse. After the execution of the will and trust agreement, Brown and
his purported wife executed a prenuptial agreement (which waived any
claim she might have against his estate) and later participated in a
marriage ceremony. Some years later, Brown attempted to annul the
marriage because the purported wife was allegedly still married to another
individual. Brown and purported wife had a son together and the matter of
the annulment was never settled. In 2007, Brown’s adult children and
purported wife brought actions to set aside his will and the 2000
Irrevocable Trust based on undue influence. The adult children argued
17