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

advancements. The Court opined that because advancements could have
multiple meanings, there was a genuine issue of material fact regarding whether
the language was ambiguous.
The matter was reversed and remanded to the district court to determine what
amounts were to be included as advancements and subtracted from Lawrence’s
distributive share of the Estate.
On remand to Hennepin County District Court, after examining all of the
evidence, the referee determined that only transfers to Lawrence that were
memorialized by a promissory note or mortgage were to be deducted from his
share of the estate. The court found that Polly intended to treat her children
equally, but “equally in what was her ‘estate’.” Any other amounts provided
aside from the promissory notes or mortgages were simply gifts, which were
evidenced annually by gift tax returns she filed.
The court also relied heavily on the testimony of the attorney who drafted the
document as she had “no financial interest in the outcome of this matter.” The
court noted that it was the attorney’s testimony that Polly intended either a
promissory note or mortgage was necessary before a transfer to Lawrence could
be considered an advancement and deducted from his share of the estate.
Regarding testimony that Polly regularly told Lawrence he was “cutting into his
inheritance,” the court found that such statements were in reference to the fact
that “the less money she had, the smaller his half of her estate would be so the
statements were technically correct. The statements do not mean that Polly
intended to deduct gifts to Lawrence from his share of the estate.”
A copy of the district court’s order is attached to these materials.
Mary Frances M. Price, J.D.
EDINA ESTATE AND ELDER LAW P.A.
5