Additional information to follow. Please contact us to learn more.

Prior Forums:

Location, Location, Location: Strategies for Administering and Litigating Trusts Across State Lines (Sept. 16, 2025)

Maslon's Inaugural Forum on Wealth Management and Litigation (Sept. 12, 2024)

Date: Oct. 8, 2025

Presenters:

• Evan Nelson, Partner, Trust & Estate Litigation Group, Maslon LLP
  Evan describes himself as a “death and dirt” lawyer. He represents clients in trusts and estate disputes, which often come to a head after a family member has died, and in real estate litigation, where clients dispute who owns and controls access to "dirt." Because the two often intersect, as people will gift land (or attempt to do so) via their wills or trusts, Evan’s distinct capabilities prove particularly beneficial. Trust and estate law is written to balance the interests of fiduciaries and beneficiaries. Evan has significant litigation experience representing both sides, and he enjoys using that experience to craft a successful litigation strategy tailored for either type of client.
• Nate Ajouri, Associate, Trust & Estate Litigation Group, Maslon LLP
  Nate helps fiduciaries and individuals navigate often complex probate and estate litigation matters. He also works with a broad spectrum of organizations in business, commercial, and municipal litigation. Nate is dedicated to helping clients through all stages of the process, working closely with them to achieve their goals. He often draws upon his experiences living and studying internationally to offer a unique perspective on his clients' concerns.
• Kelley Scrocca, Counsel, Estate Planning Group, Maslon LLP
  Kelley is a highly experienced trust and estate attorney who specializes in assisting ultra high net worth clients with estate planning, asset protection planning, and complex trust administration. She has represented a wide range of individuals, from professional athletes to ranch owners to members of the U.S. Congress. Kelley works closely with both clients and their families to understand their goals, facilitate wealth transfer, and establish an enduring legacy for future generations.

Continuing Education: Maslon will seek approval with the Minnesota State Board of Continuing Legal Education for 1.0 hour of standard CLE credit, and with American Bankers Association (ABA) Professional Certifications for the equivalent Certified Trust and Fiduciary Advisor (CTFA) credit.

To register, please contact us at info@maslon.com.

This half-day program in Minneapolis will feature two panel discussions on how to best serve high net worth clients with complex assets requiring multi-jurisdictional administration or litigation—with topics including situs, residency, and related tax issues, as well as venue and choice of forum in dispute resolution. Learn how to utilize residency to minimize taxes while avoiding audit issues and discover how being thoughtful about venue and location can play a game-changing role in trust disputes.

Agenda

• 9-9:30 a.m. | Registration & Breakfast
• 9:30-10:30 a.m. | Session 1: Where Is Your Heart's Home? Tax Residency Issues for Business Owners
• 10:30-10:45 a.m. | Break
• 10:45-11:45 a.m. | Session 2: "We're Not in Minnesota Anymore!" Administrative, Tax, and Litigation Considerations with Respect to Multi-Jurisdictional Trusts
• 11:45 a.m.-1 p.m. | Networking Lunch

Session 1 | Where Is Your Heart’s Home? Tax Residency Issues for Business Owners

Financial planning clients often have questions about residency and taxes—particularly when they are planning to sell or merge a business, or foresee another large income event, and when a trust is involved. The issue is more complex than many realize. What are the implications of timing? What does it really mean to “move” to another state? How are equity deals treated differently than asset deals? Attorneys Michael Sampson and Susan Markey have heard them all, from “Can I just park my RV in South Dakota and travel?” to “Why can’t I call my Lake Minnetonka mansion a cabin?” In this presentation, they discuss how a good estate plan and careful consideration of residency decisions can help clients minimize taxes when selling a business—while avoiding potential audit issues.

Speakers: Michael Sampson and Susan Markey, Maslon LLP

Session 2 | "We're Not in Minnesota Anymore!" Administrative, Tax, and Litigation Considerations with Respect to Multi-Jurisdictional Trusts

Many trusts with significant assets are multi-jurisdictional in nature, particularly where trust assets, trustees, and beneficiaries are located in different states. Our panel will discuss key considerations surrounding trust situs and jurisdiction. We will explore how conflicting state laws can affect trust administration, decanting and trust modification, fiduciary duties, and beneficiary rights, highlighting potential litigation risks (and opportunities) that may arise across jurisdictions. We will give special focus to the factors that may affect jurisdiction and venue in litigated matters, as well as tax situs implications, including state income tax exposure and planning opportunities. In this presentation, forum attendees will gain practical insights for advising clients and mitigating legal and tax risks in the administration of multi-jurisdictional trusts.

Speakers: Julian Zebot and Evan Nelson, Maslon LLP; Andrea Smith, Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.

Registration

Please contact us to learn more.

Continuing Education

Maslon will seek approval with the Minnesota State Board of Continuing Legal Education for 2.0 hours of standard CLE credit, and with American Bankers Association (ABA) Professional Certifications for the equivalent Certified Trust and Fiduciary Advisor (CTFA) credit.

Expansion of Dynasty Trusts in Minnesota

Most notably, the law signed by the governor on May 6 amends Minnesota’s rule against perpetuities, which provides an outer limit on how long trusts may exist. The previous rule required interests in a trust to vest within 90 years after the interest was created. Under the new rule, a trust’s interest must vest 500 years after the interest was created.

This significant change allows families to protect their assets for many generations while potentially avoiding federal transfer taxes. This rule only applies to trusts created on or after Aug. 1, 2025, and will not affect existing trusts.

The change brings Minnesota in line with the majority of other states that have already allowed for so-called “dynasty trusts.” Statutes in other states that have modified their rule against perpetuities vary in the length of time they allow assets to be held in trust, and while some states allow trusts to last forever, Minnesota’s generous 500-year period may be attractive for clients looking to establish dynasty trusts in Minnesota.

Duties and Liabilities of Directing Parties

The law also substantially clarifies and updates the duties and liability of directing parties in so-called “directed trusts.” It specifies that distribution trust advisors and investment trust advisors are fiduciaries who are potentially subject to liability unless their duties or liability are limited by the terms of the trust—even then, the statute provides that their duties or liability cannot be eliminated entirely. By contrast, under the amended statute, trust protectors are not fiduciaries unless the governing document provides otherwise. Similar to trustees, directing parties who are fiduciaries can limit their liability exposure by providing regular accountings and reports to the beneficiaries.

Relatedly, the “office of directing party” is now subject to default rules similar to those that apply to trustees with respect to issues such as fiduciary bonds, reasonable compensation, resignation, removal, and replacement unless the trust instrument provides otherwise.

Parental Inheritance Rights

Minnesota Statutes § 524.2-114 now bars parents of adult children from inheriting from their deceased child’s estate if a party can establish by clear and convincing evidence that during the child’s years of minority, parental rights could have been terminated and in the year preceding the child’s death, the parent and deceased child were estranged. Previously, the statute only applied to the estates of children who died before reaching the age of 18.

While it remains a best practice to expressly disinherit family members by way of a duly executed estate plan, this statute seeks to ensure a decedent’s wishes are fulfilled even if they die without a valid will. This statute may also open the door to broader litigation efforts. That said, with the heightened clear and convincing evidence standard, proving that parental rights could have been terminated during a decedent’s childhood may prove to be a challenge depending on the age of the decedent at the time of their death.

Update Reflecting the Tomczik Decision

In July 2023, we published a legal alert discussing Matter of the Estate of Mathew Joseph Tomczik. In Estate of Tomczik, a divored decedent’s former in-laws alleged that they were entitled to inherit under Tomczik’s will because a gift to “my spouse’s heirs” remained in effect following their daughter’s divorce. The Minnesota Supreme Court held that such a position would lead to outcomes that many divorced couples would not intend.

The legislature has now clarified that members of the former spouse’s family who are not also members of the deceased individual’s family (e.g., common descendants) do not inherit under a will, beneficiary designation, or trust following a divorce. Upon a divorce or annulment, the nomination of a former spouse’s family member to serve as a personal representative, conservator, agent, or trustee also lapses.

Time Limit to Contest Decedent's Revocable Trust

Under the clarified statute, a trustee can limit the time in which a person can challenge the validity of a now-deceased settlor’s trust to 120 days by sending the beneficiaries a copy of the trust instrument and a notice informing the beneficiaries of the settlor’s death, the trust’s existence, of the trustee’s name and address, and the time allowed to commence a proceeding. Previously, the notice did not require the trustee to inform a party of the settlor’s death.

Modification of a Trust by Financial Agents

The new law also modified Minn. Stat. § 501C.0411(a) to allow an individual acting under a power of attorney to consent to the modification or termination of a noncharitable irrevocable trust if the power of attorney expressly authorizes it. This change now specifically requires that a power of attorney expressly authorize the power rather than simply designating the person as a financial agent. The statute also makes clear that a Minnesota statutory short form power of attorney does not authorize the agent to participate in the modification or termination of a trust. In addition, an agent may modify or terminate the trust if they are expressly authorized to do so by the terms of the trust.

Modification of Uneconomic Trusts

The new law also increases the threshold for a trustee to modify or terminate an uneconomic trust without court approval from $50,000 to $150,000. If the assets in a trust are worth more than $150,000, the trustee may ask the court to terminate and distribute the trust or appoint a different trustee if the court concludes that the value of the trust property is insufficient to justify the continued cost of administration.

We Can Help

Maslon’s Trust & Estate Litigation and Estate Planning attorneys welcome your questions about trusts, trustees, and legal precedent in this often complex area of law.

Maslon has sought approval with the Minnesota State Board of Continuing Legal Education for 1.0 hour of standard CLE credit, and with the American Bankers Association for 1.0 hour of CTFA credit. Both applications are pending. We will notify participants upon approval.

To register, please write to Maslon.

Julian focuses his legal practice on probate, fiduciary, and trust litigation as well as business and commercial litigation. He has counseled and represented individual and business clients in both federal and state courts as well as arbitration proceedings, and he has handled matters for clients at all stages of the litigation process, including mediation, trials, and appeals.

Nate helps fiduciaries and individuals navigate often complex probate and estate litigation matters. He also works with a broad spectrum of organizations in business, commercial, and municipal litigation. Nate is dedicated to helping clients through all stages of the process, working closely with them to achieve their goals.

Yemaya is an attorney in Maslon's Estate Planning Group who works with clients to help them achieve their wealth management and legacy goals. She understands the importance of listening carefully to clients’ concerns regarding their financial future, business succession, and family needs.

Program Description

It’s been said that best laid plans often go awry. Perhaps no one knows this better than the advisor or counsel tasked with helping high net worth clients create and execute plans for the transfer of significant assets, a process often complicated by unforeseen circumstances and complex family dynamics. Helping such clients maximize the impact of their assets requires sophisticated and practical strategies, as well as command of the evolving legislation and case law relating to both tax and wealth. In this interactive forum, financial advisors, attorneys, and other wealth management professionals will discuss proven practices for crafting resilient estate and succession plans, as well as lessons learned in disputes involving the same.

Agenda

• 9-9:30 a.m. | Registration & Breakfast
• 9:30-10:30 a.m. | Legacy Building Blueprint: Advanced estate, tax, and business succession planning for high net worth individuals and families
• 10:30-10:45 a.m. | Break
• 10:45-11:45 a.m. | Best Laid Plans: How litigation can defend, explore, and even undo Settlor's intent 
• 11:45 a.m.-1 p.m. | Networking Lunch

Panel 1 | Legacy Building Blueprint: Advanced estate, tax, and business succession planning for high net worth individuals and families

Wealth management professionals carry the important responsibility of helping clients identify how their assets will be used to bring about their desired legacy. But as Lewis Carroll once said, "If you don't know where you're going, any road will get you there." This presentation will provide varied perspectives on how and when to help clients define legacy, including that it need not begin at death. Presenters will cover best practices for maximizing wealth from a variety of sources—including business, accumulated, and inherited assets—as well as tax-efficient strategies for enjoying and sharing wealth during one’s lifetime—from early wealth transfer and wise spending to witnessing the profound impact of charitable contributions. Finally, we'll address important upcoming tax law changes to help ensure your clients are well-prepared for the future.

• Moderator: Matthew Frerichs, Partner, Maslon LLP
• Panelists:
  • Angela Alvig, CPA, Founder & Personal Wealth CFO, Simplify Wealth LLC
  • Sean Hauenstein, CPA, Partner, Copeland Buhl & Company PLLP
  • Michael Sampson, Partner, Maslon LLP
  • Peter Slocum, Managing Director, Bayview Capital

Panel 2 | Best Laid Plans: How litigation can defend, explore, and even undo Settlor's intent

Few people anticipate that their carefully constructed estate plan could one day become the subject of litigation. When disputes do arise, they often revolve around settlors’ intentions—or at least what people think settlors intended. In this presentation, panelists will discuss "red flags" in wealth transfer planning that can indicate some likelihood of disputes, e.g., favored siblings, informational asymmetry, and beliefs about what Mom or Dad "really" wanted. Panelists will also discuss several mechanisms in the probate and trusts codes that can be used to resolve such disputes.

• Moderator: Evan Nelson, Partner, Maslon LLP
• Panelists:
  • Carly Johnson, Associate, Maslon LLP
  • Robyn Ingber, Trust & Estate Strategist, NorthRock Partners
  • Jason Schuller, Sr. Estate Planning, Trust & Legal Consultant, Fiduciary Counselling, Inc.

Registration

Please contact us to learn more.

Nate helps fiduciaries and individuals navigate often complex probate and estate litigation matters. He also works with a broad spectrum of organizations in business, commercial, and municipal litigation. Nate often draws upon his experiences living and studying internationally to offer a unique perspective on his clients' concerns.

Carly assists clients across a broad range of general commercial disputes, with a particular emphasis on construction and trust and estate litigation, including guardianships/conservatorships, contested estates, probate, and elder law matters. She also advises clients on contract matters and real estate disputes.

Those interested in attending may contact Emily Lawson at emily.lawson@maslon.com or 612.672.8253.

Julian focuses his legal practice on probate, fiduciary, and trust litigation as well as business and commercial litigation. He has counseled and represented individual and business clients in both federal and state courts as well as arbitration proceedings, and he has handled matters for clients at all stages of the litigation process, including mediation, trials, and appeals.

Nate helps fiduciaries and individuals navigate often complex probate and estate litigation matters. He also works with a broad spectrum of organizations in business, commercial, and municipal litigation. Nate is dedicated to helping clients through all stages of the process, working closely with them to achieve their goals.

Yemaya is an attorney in Maslon's Estate Planning Group who works with clients to help them achieve their wealth management and legacy goals. She understands the importance of listening carefully to clients’ concerns regarding their financial future, business succession, and family needs.

For more information or to register, go to Minnesota CLE: "Navigating Diverse Cultural Expectations and Approaches to Wealth Transfer."

Attendees of the 2024 Probate and Trust Law Section Conference may attend this webcast free of charge.

Evan, a litigation partner, describes himself as a “death and dirt” lawyer. He represents clients in trusts and estate disputes, which often come to a head after a family member has died, and in real estate litigation, where clients dispute who owns and controls access to "dirt." Because the two often intersect, as people will gift land (or attempt to do so) via their wills or trusts, Evan’s distinct capabilities prove particularly beneficial.

Peter is a litigation attorney who has successfully represented clients across a broad range of matters, including trusts and estates disputes, shareholder disputes in closely held corporations, business torts, and breaches of contract. Prior to law school, Peter received a Ph.D. from Cornell University in Islamic law. His dissertation focused on the legal development of the Islamic trust or waqf during the first centuries of Islam.

A buy-sell agreement is an agreement that outlines what happens to an owner’s share in an entity when that owner desires to transfer shares upon their death or departure. Buy-sell agreements are frequently used by closely held corporations, LLCs, and partnerships to facilitate transitions in ownership. Connelly has far-reaching consequences for any company with a buy-sell agreement funded by life insurance.

A Tale of Two Brothers

Two brothers—Michael and Thomas Connelly—were the only shareholders in a small building supply corporation. Because they wanted the company to stay in the family upon either of their deaths, they entered into a buy-sell agreement requiring the company to buy the shares of the first brother to die if the surviving brother declined to purchase them. The company obtained a life insurance policy on each brother to make sure it would have enough money to satisfy this requirement. 

When Michael died, Thomas elected not to purchase Michael’s shares, triggering the company’s purchase obligation. The company used the $3 million in life insurance proceeds it received as a result of Michael’s death to buy the shares. As executor of Michael’s estate, Thomas was required to file a federal estate tax return detailing the value of Michael’s assets, including his shares in the company. Thomas engaged a third party who determined that Michael’s shares in the company were worth $3 million; however, the third party excluded the life insurance proceeds when determining the fair market value of the company. Thomas reported the $3 million value on the estate tax return, relying on the Eleventh Circuit’s decision in Estate of Blount, which held that insurance proceeds should not be included in the value of a corporation when they are “offset by an obligation to pay those proceeds to the estate in a stock buyout,” 428 F.3d 1338, 1345.  

The IRS disagreed with Thomas’s reasoning. During its audit of Michael’s estate, the IRS contended that the total valuation of the company should include the life insurance proceeds—thereby making the total value of the company $6.86 million, rather than $3.86 million, when Michael died. Accordingly, the IRS said that Michael’s estate should have paid higher taxes based on the higher valuation of Michael’s stock. The estate paid the taxes and then sued the IRS for a refund. 

Supreme Court: Life Insurance Counts in Estate Tax Valuation

The case made it all the way to the Supreme Court. The dispute focused on the inclusion of the life insurance proceeds as part of the company’s total fair market value for purposes of the estate tax. The Supreme Court sided with the IRS in a unanimous decision, holding that life insurance proceeds that will be used to redeem a decedent’s shares must be counted when calculating the value of those shares for estate tax purposes. The court emphasized that the point of the estate tax is to assess the value of Michael’s shares at the time he died—even if the value would be drastically different a day later, once the life insurance proceeds were paid out.

What It Means for Your Business

A better understanding of the consequences of their buy-sell agreement may have prevented years of litigation for the Connelly family. There were alternate options available. The brothers could have purchased life insurance policies on each other, rather than having the company take out the life insurance. This structure, known as a cross-purchase agreement, would have placed the life insurance proceeds outside the company’s assets, potentially reducing the estate tax burden. (It is important to note that a cross-purchase agreement may have had different tax consequences for the brothers personally, but would have avoided a situation where the company experienced a stark increase in valuation.)

Connelly affects any company—including corporations, LLCs, and partnerships—with a buy-sell agreement funded by life insurance. Companies utilizing buy-sell agreements funded by life insurance should promptly review these agreements to ensure the best possible arrangement is in place to accomplish their owners’ goals and minimize tax liability.

We Can Help

Each estate plan is unique to the individual’s circumstances and wishes. If you own shares in a closely held company, it is imperative that you fully understand the tax implications of both your business succession plan and estate plan. Maslon’s experienced Estate Planning and Corporate groups can work together to help you navigate the complexities of estate planning for closely held businesses to ensure your wishes are met and tax liabilities are minimized.

For context, a guardian is a person appointed by the court to have custody and make care and other non-financial decisions on behalf of a person subject to guardianship. Guardians, under the Probate Code, have “the duty to provide for the care, comfort, and maintenance needs of the person subject to guardianship ….” Minn. Stat. § 524.5-313(c)(2). Until the new legislation becomes effective on Aug. 1, 2024, a guardian may be removed for failing to satisfy this duty, “but the guardian shall have no personal or monetary liability ….”

In the 2022 case Zika v. Elder Care of Minnesota, the Minnesota Court of Appeals described this provision as providing a guardian statutory immunity from a negligence claim. 979 N.W.2d 472, 479. While a resident at an elder care facility, Jean Krause was the victim of a sexual assault. Naree Weaver, who was Krause’s guardian, was notified of the assault; however, Weaver did not seek, and Krause did not receive, trauma treatment related to the assault. The personal representative of Krause’s estate alleged that Weaver was negligent in her duties to provide for the “care, comfort, and maintenance needs of the person subject to guardianship.” The trial court dismissed the negligence claims, relying on the immunity provided by the then-current language of Minn. Stat. § 524.5-313.

On May 24, 2024, Governor Tim Walz signed legislation that abolished this immunity. The new legislation provides a cause of action to hold a guardian personally liable for any harm caused to a person subject to a guardianship due to the guardian’s “reckless or willful misconduct, or gross negligence.” A claim for ordinary negligence still appears to be prohibited by the statute.

Specifically, the new legislation amends Section 524.5-313(c)(2) to remove the sentence that had provided, “Failure to satisfy the needs and requirements of this clause shall be grounds for removal of a private guardian, but the guardian shall have no personal or monetary liability.” Instead, Section 524.5-315 has added subsection (f) to provide that “Failure to satisfy the duties of a guardian under section 524.5-313, paragraph (c), shall be grounds for removal of a private guardian, but the guardian shall not be held liable for acts or omissions made in the discharge of the guardian's duties except for acts or omissions that result in harm to the person subject to guardianship and that constitute reckless or willful misconduct, or gross negligence.” (Emphasis added.) This legislation will become effective on Aug. 1, 2024 and “applies to causes of action accruing on or after that date.”

It remains to be seen how courts will define “reckless or willful misconduct, or gross negligence” in the context of a guardian’s conduct. There may be questions whether the facts in Zika rose to “reckless or willful misconduct, or gross negligence.” Further, there may be questions as to how to apply this statute to guardians who were first appointed under the Probate Code when it promised guardians complete immunity. What is certain is that, after Aug. 1, 2024, Minnesota guardians should consider how this abolishment of statutory immunity might impact their decisions and conduct. Similarly, people who are subject to a guardianship—or their successor guardians—may consider whether they have been damaged by a guardian’s “reckless or willful misconduct, or gross negligence.”

We Can Help

Maslon’s Trust & Estate Litigation and Estate Planning attorneys welcome your questions about guardianships and legal precedent in this often complex area of law.

June 10:

• Maslon Board Member and Estate Planning Partner Susan Link moderates the "2024 Probate Panel: Reviewing and Resolving the Latest Issues in Probate Administration," with Paralegal Tina M. Johnson serving on the panel.
• Maslon Board Member and Partner Julian Zebot, chair of Maslon's Trust & Estate Litigation Group, co-presents a session titled, "What to Do with a Bad Personal Representative or Trustee: Assessing the Tools in Your Legal Toolbox."

June 11:

• Trust & Estate Group Chair Michael Sampson moderates "2024 Large Estates Panel: Planning in Uncertain Economic Times."

For more information or to register, go to Minnesota CLE: 2024 Probate and Trust Law Section Conference.

Mike focuses on high-end estate and tax planning, estate and trust administration, charitable planning, and business succession planning. He helps his clients focus on what it is they want to accomplish with their wealth. After assisting his clients in identifying their specific wealth planning goals, he works with them and their other professional advisors to develop and implement wealth transfer strategies that are consistent not only with their goals, but also with their cash flow needs and tolerance for risk.

Susan, a member of the firm's board of directors, practices in the areas of estate planning, probate, and trust administration. She works closely with families to plan the disposition of their assets, both during lifetime and at death, and to accomplish the optimal estate and gift tax planning for clients through wills, trusts, and other instruments. Susan routinely drafts estate plans that include estate tax and generation-skipping tax planning, in addition to drafting and implementing irrevocable trusts, charitable trusts, qualified personal residence trusts, minors' trusts, antenuptial agreements, and postnuptial agreements. She is regularly involved in the analysis and issues of lifetime gifting programs, estate tax planning, and generation-skipping issues.

Julian, a board member and chair of Maslon's Trust & Estate Litigation Group, focuses his legal practice on probate, fiduciary, and trust litigation as well as business and commercial litigation. His probate, fiduciary, and trust litigation practice has involved many different types of contested estate, trust, probate, and elder law matters, including will/trust contests (including claims of undue influence and diminished capacity), construction/interpretation disputes, accounting actions, breach of fiduciary duty claims, fiduciary removal actions, trust instruction proceedings, financial elder abuse claims, and creditor claims against estates. He has also developed a niche practice representing and counseling parties involved in complicated multijurisdictional trust litigation, often involving parallel lawsuits in different states, and has familiarity with associated trust situs, venue, and jurisdictional issues.

Tina is a paralegal with more than two decades of experience managing probate and trust administrations, maintaining trust account ledgers and annual trust accountings, and preparing fiduciary income tax, gift tax, and estate tax returns. She also supports attorneys with clients' long term care planning needs and annual accountings for guardianships, conservatorships, and special/supplemental needs trusts.

Nate and Yemaya will present "Probate Property vs. Non-Probate Assets." Nate will team up with Carly for "Probate Disputes and Litigation."

For more information or to register, go to NBI: Minnesota Probate Process from Start to Finish.

Nate, a litigation attorney, helps fiduciaries and individuals navigate often complex probate and estate litigation matters. He also works with a broad spectrum of organizations in business, commercial, and municipal litigation. Nate is dedicated to helping clients through all stages of the process, working closely with them to achieve their goals.

Carly, also a member of the Litigation Group, assists clients across a broad range of general commercial disputes, with a particular emphasis on trust and estate litigation, including guardianships/conservatorships, contested estates, probate, and elder law matters. She also advises clients on contract matters and real estate disputes.

Yemaya is an attorney in Maslon's Estate Planning Group who works with clients to help them achieve their wealth management and legacy goals. She understands the importance of listening carefully to clients’ concerns regarding their financial future, business succession, and family needs.

If you are interested in attending, please contact Emily Lawson at emily.lawson@maslon.com or 612.672.8253.

Julian focuses his legal practice on probate, fiduciary, and trust litigation as well as business and commercial litigation. He has counseled and represented individual and business clients in both federal and state courts as well as arbitration proceedings, and he has handled matters for clients at all stages of the litigation process, including mediation, trials, and appeals.

Nate helps fiduciaries and individuals navigate often complex probate and estate litigation matters. He also works with a broad spectrum of organizations in business, commercial, and municipal litigation. Nate is dedicated to helping clients through all stages of the process, working closely with them to achieve their goals.

Yemaya is an attorney in Maslon's Estate Planning Group who works with clients to help them achieve their wealth management and legacy goals. She understands the importance of listening carefully to clients’ concerns regarding their financial future, business succession, and family needs.

The event takes place May 8-11, 2024, in Washington, D.C. For more information, go to: 36th Annual ABA RPTE National CLE Conference.

Julian focuses his legal practice on probate, fiduciary, and trust litigation as well as business and commercial litigation. He has counseled and represented individual and business clients in both federal and state courts as well as arbitration proceedings, and he has handled matters for clients at all stages of the litigation process, including mediation, trials, and appeals.

Julian also serves as vice chair of the American Bar Association Real Property, Trust and Estate Law Section Litigation, Ethics and Malpractice Group; and as immediate past president of the National Academy of Elder Law Attorneys–Minnesota Chapter. He was named a fellow in American College of Trust and Estate Counsel in 2020 and serves on several committees for the organization. In addition, Julian frequently writes and speaks on topics relating to probate, fiduciary, and trust litigation, fiduciary risk management, and professional ethics.

We published a legal alert on Feb. 28, 2023, discussing Swanson v. Wolf, 986 N.W.2d 217 (Minn. App. 2023). To summarize the issue, the Minnesota Trust Code provides for two types of jurisdiction in trust proceedings: 1) in rem jurisdiction, which refers to the court's authority over the trust's assets, and 2) in personam jurisdiction, which refers to the court's authority over a person interested in the trust.

As provided for in Minn. Stat. § 501C.0203, either form of jurisdiction can be invoked by the specific manner in which notice of an initial petition is provided. An in rem petition is served by publishing in a paper of record, putting the world on notice of the proceeding. An in personam petition is served by personally serving the people interested in the trust. A separate statute, Minn. Stat. § 501C.0202, enumerates the courts' powers in trust proceedings. These powers include the ability to remove a trustee. In Swanson, the Court of Appeals determined that because the ability to remove a trustee was a power "binding on individuals," then the court must have in personam jurisdiction over the trustee to exercise that power.

As we noted last year, Swanson called into question which jurisdiction was necessary for the other items of judicial relief under section 501C.0202 of the Minnesota Trust Code. For example, if a court needed in personam jurisdiction to remove a trustee, does a court need in personam jurisdiction to appoint a new trustee? If a trustee sold a trust's real property, which jurisdiction is necessary for the court to approve that action? The asset would be part of the res of the trust but the court would be asked to confirm an individual's action regarding that asset. Is that in rem? Is that in personam?

By amending the Minnesota Trust Code, lawmakers have answered those questions. Specifically, section 501C.0202 now makes clear that the enumerated powers of a court may be exercised "whether filed by petition under the district court's in rem or in personam jurisdiction …." The legislation also clarifies that an order issued by a court with in rem jurisdiction is binding "upon the trust estate and all interested persons …."

In other words, lawmakers have clarified that a court's powers in a trust proceeding are not limited by whether the court operates under in rem or in personam jurisdiction. With this clarification, the only consideration between in rem or in personam jurisdiction is how the filing party wishes to serve its petition and who will be bound by the court's order.

We Can Help

Maslon's Trust & Estate Litigation and Estate Planning attorneys welcome your questions about trusts, trustees, and legal precedent in this often complex area of law.

For details or to register, go to Minnesota CLE: Appellate Practice and Procedure: Oral Argument at Minnesota’s Court of Appeals and Supreme Court.

Erica represents clients in complex commercial disputes primarily in the areas of tort and product liability, business torts, insurance coverage, and breach of contract actions. She is also an experienced appellate attorney. Erica currently serves as reporter for three Minnesota Supreme Court Advisory Committees: the Rules of Civil Procedure, the Rules of Civil Appellate Procedure, and the General Rules of Practice; and she is the former chair of the Minnesota State Bar Association's Appellate Practice Section.

For details or to register, go to Minnesota CLE: 2024 Civil Litigator’s Annual Update.

Erica represents clients in complex commercial disputes primarily in the areas of tort and product liability, business torts, insurance coverage, and breach of contract actions. She is also an experienced appellate attorney. Erica currently serves as reporter for three Minnesota Supreme Court Advisory Committees: the Rules of Civil Procedure, the Rules of Civil Appellate Procedure, and the General Rules of Practice; and she is the former chair of the Minnesota State Bar Association's Appellate Practice Section, and co-authors four volumes of the Minnesota Practice Series—including Civil Rules Annotated and General Rules Annotated.

Jevon is an experienced trial lawyer who works with clients in a range of industries, with a focus on assisting policyholders in insurance coverage disputes and representing stakeholders in construction and real estate matters, as well as appeals. He appears frequently before Minnesota and federal appellate courts. In addition, Jevon co-authors four volumes of the Minnesota Practice Series—including Civil Rules Annotated and General Rules Annotated—and serves on the Minnesota Supreme Court Advisory Committee on the Rules of Civil Procedure.

Jeremy focuses his practice on product liability defense and complex commercial disputes. He assists clients in navigating all aspects of civil litigation, from inception through appeals, with particular experience in managing the discovery process.

In "Approach the Bench: Judges’ Tips for Trust & Estate Litigators," Carly will engage the judges on common mistakes they see litigators make, what lawyers should tell their clients about going to court, and more. Serving as panelists are Judge Julia Dayton-Klein of the Fourth Judicial District (Hennepin County), Judge Shawn Moynihan of the First Judicial District (Dakota County), and Referee Joel Olson of the Second Judicial District (Ramsey County).

Maslon Partner Evan Nelson co-chairs the Trust and Estate Litigation and Dispute Resolution Committee.

For more information or to register, go to MSBA Judges Panel.

Carly is a litigation attorney focusing on will/trust contests, guardianship and conservatorship proceedings, as well as construction, real estate, and contract disputes. She represents both institutions and individuals serving as trustees, personal representatives, or attorneys-in-fact for clients and loved ones.

As discussed in our Court of Appeals decision legal alert, the trust was established by Otto Bremer, who, during his life, also created a holding company, Bremer Financial Corporation ("the bank"), for his investments in various community banks. The bank operates as a regional financial entity through its wholly owned subsidiary, Bremer Bank. Otto Bremer's charitable trust was originally funded with shares of the bank. The trust and the bank remained linked throughout the years, such that the trustees of the trust were members of the bank board.

The trust is managed by three trustees, who have authorization and discretion to determine the methods and processes for carrying out the trust’s charitable purpose. In 2019, the three trustees were Brian Lipschultz and two other individuals.

Lipschultz, who became a trustee in 2012, admitted to using trust resources for personal uses "probably from the day [he] arrived at the Otto Bremer Trust," the court quoted him as saying. Specifically, Lipschultz admitted to using "staff time, postage, and computer resources" between 2017 and 2019 that amounted to approximately $1,875 (which does not account for any value of potential misuse between 2012 and 2019). He later reimbursed the trust after staff members raised concerns about Lipschultz's use of trust assets, but the trust incurred a self-dealing tax and additional accounting and legal fees due to Lipschultz's actions, which Lipschultz did not reimburse to the trust.

In 2019, the bank board considered whether to sell the bank. The trustees, including Lipschultz, were interested in selling as it would benefit the trust, but the remaining board members of the bank were not interested in selling. Frustrated, Lipschultz orchestrated a plan for a "hostile takeover" of the bank board. The plan was to sell the trust's nonvoting shares to investors, convert those shares to voting shares, and thereby obtain more than 50% of the voting power over the bank between the trustees and the investors.

Lipschultz aggressively pursued this plan and appeared willing to follow through with it regardless of the consequences. Lipschultz texted a consultant that he wanted investors "who live for this kind of thing" and that he was "looking forward to observing the carnage" if the bank tried to withhold investor shares. Lipschultz expected lawsuits comparable to "an aerial bombardment, the likes of which sleepy St. Paul has never seen." When investors did not sue after the bank refused to recognize the sale of stock, Lipschultz was frustrated since he assumed the investors were “aggressive animals that would swoop in and go for the [bank's] jugular without any coordination required.” Further, Lipschultz told associates that he had substantial resources to fund a protracted legal battle—the trust's resources.

Lipschultz also exerted pressure on charitable beneficiaries of the trust to support his plan. Specifically, Lipschultz told the CEO of a nonprofit, which had been a trust beneficiary for years and for whom the trust was the largest donor, that the nonprofit needed to "prove" that it was the trustees' partner if it wanted to obtain future funding. Following Lipschultz's actions, the nonprofit returned the trust's $1.2 million donation and severed ties with the trust.

The district court found that Lipschultz's actions—his admitted "self-dealing, aggressive behavior during the bank sale, and abuse of grant-making powers"—when considered together, amounted to a serious breach of trust justifying his removal. The court also found that Lipschultz had "displayed a crude, vulgar, and otherwise offensive brashness that has no place in the charitable world." The Court of Appeals affirmed.

The Minnesota Supreme Court affirmed the lower courts rulings that a series of smaller breaches may constitute a "serious breach of trust." The Minnesota Supreme Court stated that the official comments to the Uniform Trust Code apply to Section 501C.0706(b), which includes this standard.

While the holding of Bremer Trust is closely tied to its facts, the case still teaches trustees an important lesson—minor breaches of trustee's duties can be grounds for removal if these breaches become pervasive and commonplace. Trustees should be professional and civil in their interactions with others, even when, and perhaps especially when, there is potential conflict related to trust administration.

Maslon Partner Michael Sampson, chair of the Estate Planning Group, will present two sessions on Nov. 14 as part of Minnesota CLE's Hot Topics in Advanced Estate Administration seminar. In "Post-Mortem Planning," Mike will discuss the most important decisions to be made after the decedent's death. His second session focuses on estate and income tax issues. Attorneys Evan Nelson and Carly Johnson present "Litigation and Post-Trial Practice," in which they discuss key issues related to estate litigation and appellate issues.

For more information or to register, go to Minnesota CLE: Hot Topics in Advanced Estate Administration.

Mike focuses on high-end estate and tax planning, estate and trust administration, charitable planning, and business succession planning. He helps his clients focus on what it is they really want to accomplish with their wealth. After assisting his clients in identifying their specific wealth planning goals, he works with them and their other professional advisors to develop and implement wealth transfer strategies that are consistent not only with their goals, but also with their cash flow needs and tolerance for risk.

Evan describes himself as a “death and dirt” lawyer. He represents clients in trusts and estate disputes, which often come to a head after a family member has died, and in real estate litigation, where clients dispute who owns and controls access to "dirt." Because the two often intersect, as people will gift land (or attempt to do so) via their wills or trusts, Evan’s distinct capabilities prove particularly beneficial.

Carly is a litigation attorney focusing on will/trust contests, guardianship and conservatorship proceedings, as well as construction, real estate, and contract disputes. She represents both institutions and individuals serving as trustees, personal representatives, or attorneys-in-fact for clients and loved ones.

The ACTEC Fall Conference takes place from Oct. 26-29.

Julian focuses his legal practice on probate, fiduciary, and trust litigation as well as business and commercial litigation. He has counseled and represented individual and business clients in both federal and state courts as well as arbitration proceedings, and he has handled matters for clients at all stages of the litigation process, including mediation, trials, and appeals.

Julian was named a fellow in ACTEC in 2020 and serves on several committees for the organization. He also serves as vice chair of the American Bar Association Real Property, Trust and Estate Law Section Litigation, Ethics and Malpractice Group; and as president of the National Academy of Elder Law Attorneys–Minnesota Chapter. In addition, Julian frequently writes and speaks on topics relating to probate, fiduciary, and trust litigation, fiduciary risk management, and professional ethics.

For more information or to register, go to: Minnesota CLE: The Estate Planning, Probate & Trust Law 50.

Evan describes himself as a "death and dirt" lawyer. He represents clients in trusts and estate disputes, which often come to a head after a family member has died, and in real estate litigation, where clients dispute who owns and controls access to "dirt." Because the two often intersect, as people will gift land (or attempt to do so) via their wills or trusts, Evan's capabilities prove particularly beneficial. Evan also maintains an active pro bono practice, with significant experience in environmental, administrative, and Government Data Practices Act litigation.

Carly assists clients across a broad range of general commercial litigation matters, including trust and estate, construction, real estate, contract, and employment disputes. Her practice is informed by her active civic engagement and service, which includes her election to the Oak Park Heights City Council shortly after earning her undergraduate degree in biology from St. Thomas, and her re-election in 2022.

Evan describes himself as a “death and dirt” lawyer. He represents clients in trusts and estate disputes, which often come to a head after a family member has died, and in real estate litigation, where clients dispute who owns and controls access to "dirt." Because the two often intersect, as people will gift land (or attempt to do so) via their wills or trusts, Evan’s distinct capabilities prove particularly beneficial.

Evan also maintains an active pro bono practice, with significant experience in environmental, administrative, and Government Data Practices Act litigation.

Julian previously served as the co-chair of the ABA's Ethics and Malpractice Committee within the Litigation, Ethics and Malpractice Group.

He focuses his legal practice on probate, fiduciary, and trust litigation as well as business and commercial litigation. He has counseled and represented individual and business clients in both federal and state courts as well as arbitration proceedings, and he has handled matters for clients at all stages of the litigation process, including mediation, trials, and appeals.

Among his many other leadership roles in the field, Julian is a fellow and member of several committees of the American College of Trust and Estate Counsel (ACTEC); he also serves as president of the National Academy of Elder Law Attorneys–Minnesota Chapter. He recently completed a three-year term on the Minnesota Lawyers Professional Responsibility Board. In addition, Julian frequently writes and speaks on topics relating to probate, fiduciary, and trust litigation, fiduciary risk management, and professional ethics.

Only 11 other Minnesota private wealth law attorneys achieved the Band 1 ranking.

Susan serves on the firm's board of directors. Michael leads Maslon's Estate Planning Group.

The Chambers guide ranks the top lawyers and law firms for international private wealth law based on extensive interviews and research to assess technical legal ability, client service, depth of team, commercial vision and business understanding, diligence, value, and other qualities most valued by clients.

To view Maslon's full Chambers High Net Worth rankings, go to: 2023 Chambers High Net Worth.

About Chambers and Partners
Since 1969, London-based Chambers and Partners has published world-famous guides to the legal profession. A team of over 200 researchers conducts continuous, in-depth telephone research for all guides.

At First, a Mystery

Originally, Aretha Franklin’s family thought she had no will when she died in 2018, meaning her property would have been divided equally among her four sons. Months later, they found two handwritten wills: one inside a locked cabinet dated 2010 and the four-page couch-cushion will that was drafted in 2014. Neither was prepared with the assistance of an attorney nor included the signatures of attesting witnesses, although the 2010 will was notarized. A jury decided on July 11 that the later, couch-cushion will was in fact the valid document to control distribution of Aretha Franklin's $80 million dollar estate.

The 2014 will that the jury decided would control the estate gave Franklin’s $1.1 million home to her son, Kecalf, and his grandchildren, and did not include a provision from the earlier will requiring Kecalf and another son, Edward, to take business classes or receive a degree to inherit from the estate.[1]

Minnesota Law on Handwritten Wills

Many states around the country, including Minnesota and Franklin’s home state of Michigan, recognize handwritten wills that comply with state requirements.[2] Under Minnesota law, a will must be signed by the will-maker and also signed by two people who witnessed the will-maker’s signing.[3] Other states, such as Michigan, do not always require witnesses.

Even if Minnesota courts do not normally recognize wills that were not witnessed, they will do so if the will is valid in a state that permitted them at the time the will was drafted.[4] This situation might apply to someone who was staying part of the year in their Minnesota cabin or living in Minnesota at the time of their death but drafted a valid will elsewhere.

Handwritten or typed, however, both of Franklin’s wills would likely have been considered invalid in Minnesota, as neither were witnessed. As a result, distribution of the singer's estate would be entirely controlled by Minnesota inheritance laws, and each of her sons would inherit equally.

The Battle of the Wills

If both wills had been properly executed, how would a Minnesota court have determined whether a later will merely changes an earlier will or, instead, completely revokes and replaces it?

In Minnesota, absent an explicit statement, a new will is presumed to fully replace and revoke a previous will if it distributes all of the will-maker’s assets.[5] On the other hand, a later will is presumed to only supplement the earlier will if it does not include (and distribute) all of the will-maker’s property.[6]

Importantly, however, these presumptions may be overcome by clear and convincing evidence that the will-maker intended something else.[7] Therefore, in Minnesota, in the absence of clear and convincing evidence showing otherwise, Aretha Franklin’s couch-cushion will would completely replace the 2010 will, because it disposed of the entirety of her estate.

What You Can Do

The legal dispute over Aretha Franklin’s wills provides valuable lessons. Minnesota law requires that wills be drafted with certain formalities—including two witnesses, a signature of the will-maker, and the date. If you draft a new will intending to replace an old will, that intention should be stated. It's wise to be as clear as possible about all of your intentions in the document.

Taxes are another important consideration, especially with sizeable estates like Aretha Franklin’s. Had she consulted an attorney, her estate might have benefited from tax planning. Parents of children who are eligible for government benefits should also obtain advice on how to supplement their child’s benefits while not affecting the child's eligibility.

Finally, don't put your will under a couch cushion. It's best to keep it in a fireproof, waterproof safe in your home, and make sure your loved ones know where and how to access the document.

We Can Help

Don’t leave your estate planning to chance. Maslon’s estate planning attorneys use their extensive experience and expertise to help clients ensure that all of the legal formalities of a will are met.

If your family is in a dispute over the validity of a family member’s estate planning, our trusted team of trust & estate litigation attorneys can walk you through the legal process.

Please contact us for assistance.

Summer associate Dany Berbari contributed to this article.

-------------------------------------

[1] https://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/2023/07/11/aretha-franklin-will-dispute/; https://apnews.com/article/aretha-franklin-will-dispute-d7aba286b05ea0d0e6318ce6abc887d5

[2] Minn. Stat. § 524.2-502

[3] Minn. Stat. § 524.2-502

[4] Minn. Stat. § 524.2-506

[5] Minn. Stat. § 524.2-507 (c)

[6] Minn. Stat. § 524.2-507 (d)

[7] Minn. Stat. § 524.2-507 (c)-(d)

The ruling reversed a Minnesota Court of Appeals decision that had been troubling Minnesota estate planning attorneys since it was issued in May 2022. In the Matter of the Estate of Mathew Joseph Tomczik, the Court of Appeals determined that if a person names their former spouse in a will, an alternate residuary gift in that will to "my spouse's heirs" remains in place in the event of a divorce.[1]

In its recent ruling, the Minnesota Supreme Court determined that the Court of Appeals' decision could lead to outcomes that many divorced couples would not intend. And while the new ruling provides a needed clarification in the law, it also serves as a reminder that people should consider updating their estate plans, especially after key life events such as divorce.

The Challenges Posed by In re Tomczik

In this Minnesota case, Mathew Tomczik and his then-wife, Sara Tomczik, drafted wills that were mirror images of each other. In Mathew's will, he named "Sara Tomczik" as his wife. Mathew's will included an alternate residuary provision giving half to his heirs and half to "my wife's." Seven years after these wills were drafted, Mathew and Sara divorced. Mathew died two years after the divorce without ever revising his will. Neither Mathew nor Sara had children.

Under the Minnesota Uniform Probate Code, divorce revokes a gift made to a former spouse in a will that was made before the divorce. Therefore, Sara could get nothing. And because neither Mathew nor Sara had any children, the alternate residuary provision—half to his heirs and half to his wife's—kicked in.

Upon Mathew's death, his brother, who was named executor of the estate, assumed that the residuary provision's gift of half to "my wife's heirs-at-law" was no longer valid because Mathew did not have a spouse when he died. However, when the brother petitioned a court to probate Mathew's estate, claiming Mathew's siblings as the only beneficiaries of Mathew's will, an objection came from an unlikely source—Mathew's former parents-in-law, Calvin and Patricia Headley.

While the Headleys agreed that Mathew's ex-wife, Sara, could not receive a gift under the will, they still argued that they were beneficiaries under the alternate residuary provision because they were Sara's heirs-at-law and "my wife" was defined as "Sara Tomczik." They argued that there was no provision in the law that addressed divorce's effect on gifts to a former spouse's family, nor any reason to assume that Mathew intended for the divorce to invalidate the gift to Sara's heirs.

The Minnesota Supreme Court's Decision

The Supreme Court held that divorce may invalidate a gift to a former spouse's family—depending on the language in the will. First, the court affirmed that a gift to someone described by their familial relationship and also named is not made invalid if there is no longer a familial relationship due to a divorce. For instance, the court recognized that, in a previous Minnesota case, a gift to "my stepdaughter Dawn" was not rendered invalid by divorce; even if Dawn was no longer a stepdaughter as a result of the divorce, Dawn was still identified in the will.

The court further noted that "my wife's heirs-at-law," were not specifically named in the will. The court reasoned that, since Mathew had no wife at the time of his death, the class of people who would be "my wife's heirs-at-law" did not exist.

Further, the Supreme Court held that it is a reasonable inference—a reasonable assumption—that any person who divorces another would no longer want to include a gift to their former spouse's heirs, because any familial relationship between that person and their ex-spouse's heirs was dissolved by the divorce. Therefore, the court inferred that Mathew intended for the gift of his alternative residuary provision to be for the benefit of people defined by their familial relationship to him, not his ex-wife.

We Can Help

Although In re Tomczik clarified how estate plans should be interpreted following a divorce in a way that likely aligns with most people's wishes, it is always best to check and periodically update your estate plans. This is especially important after major life events such as divorce, the birth of a child, a child reaching the age of 18, or a major shift in your financial situation.

Maslon's estate planning attorneys follow developments in the law and use their extensive knowledge and expertise to navigate complex estate planning issues for their clients. Our attorneys can offer guidance on how to best protect your assets and ensure your wishes for your estate are properly carried out upon your death. Please contact us for assistance.
_________________
          [1] It is common for estate planning attorneys to draft "alternate residuary provisions" for married couples that take effect in the event that all of the beneficiaries of the will die before the testator—the person making the will—and cannot receive their gifts. These provisions generally state that the assets of a married testator should be split equally between their "heirs-at-law" and their spouse's heirs-at-law.
              The term "heirs-at-law" or simply “heirs” refers to anyone who has a legal right under state law to inherit a person's assets when that person dies without a will, typically children or grandchildren, but potentially parents, siblings, etc. The idea of an alternate residuary provision is to keep an estate's gifts in a person's family when circumstances change dramatically after the will is drafted.