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

John filed notice of review of the summary judgement order with the Hennepin
County District Court, arguing that the referee had erred and the language was
ambiguous. The court reviewed the summary judgement order and found the
language to be clear and unambiguous. The district court found that there was
advancement to Lawrence of $98,747.68.
On appeal to the Minnesota Court of Appeals, the issue was whether the
language in the Trust was clear and unambiguous as to its provision on
indebtedness evidenced by promissory notes or mortgages as advancement to
the estate.
The court found that no language in the will limited the term “advancement” to
indebtedness evidenced by promissory note or deed. The court further found
that while Minn. Stat. §524.2-109 only applies to advancements in cases of
intestacy, it also provides a standard for guidance in determining intent when
there is no clear language from the testator.
Minn. Stat. §524.2-109 provides that an inter vivos transfer will only be
considered an advancement if there is a contemporaneous writing stating such
by the decedent or a contemporaneous writing by the heir stating that the gift is
an advancement, or if contemporaneous writings by the decedent or heir
indicate that “the gift is to be taken into account in computing the division and
distribution of the decedent’s intestate estate.”
The court stated that while there was no contemporaneous writing with the
inter vivos gifts made to Lawrence, the trust did provide express language that
indebtedness evidenced by promissory notes or mortgages was to be treated as
an advancement. However, the Trust did not indicate that only transfers
evidenced by promissory notes or mortgages were to be treated as
Mary Frances M. Price, J.D.
EDINA ESTATE AND ELDER LAW P.A.
4