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

The 1969 law also highlighted the problem of unjust enrichment of the spouse
where the spouse would receive all joint tenancy property and then elect against
a Will that allowed for assets to go to other beneficiaries.
Lack of abatement—determination of whether the spousal elective share would
be taken from which property…specific or general devisees, was yet another
problem.
c. Pre December 31, 1986
Prior to December 31, 1986, Minnesota law on spousal rights to decedent
spouse’s estate continued to be limited in some ways by the exclusions of certain
forms of ownership interests from the reach of electing spouses. On the other
hand, the law as existed then also allowed an electing surviving spouse to
“double dip” by electing against transfers to others and also keeping any property
transferred to the survivor by the decedent. The need for reform of the then
existing laws on surviving spouses’ elective shares became apparent when
courts were left to decide whether to honor the intent of decedents who left
property, outside probate, to others or whether the surviving spouse should be
entitled to some equitable relief in such circumstances. 10
d. Post December 31, 1986
As part of its effort to reform the laws on spousal rights, the Minnesota
Legislature embraced some aspects of the UPC and opted to determine a
spousal elective share by utilizing an “augmented estate” format whereby the
surviving spouse may elect to take an elective share amount equal to the value
of the elective share percentage of the augmented estate, taking into
consideration the length of time the spouse and the decedent were married to
10 See generally In re Jeruzal’s Estate, 130 N.W. 2nd 474 (1964)
4