In re Estate of Trobaugh

4 Citing cases

  1. Olesen v. Manty

    438 N.W.2d 404 (Minn. Ct. App. 1989)   Cited 6 times
    Assuming contract to will existed and determining appellant failed to prove wills were irrevocable because "[n]o express mention of an intent not to revoke is contained in any of appellant's documents"

    The trial court agreed with respondent and held that the writings did not satisfy subsection (3) of the statute. Both parties rely on In re Estate of Trobaugh, 380 N.W.2d 152 (Minn.Ct.App. 1986), to support their positions. In Trobaugh, appellants claimed that their grandmother made an oral contract to bequeath her house to them in her will. A letter, which referred to the decedent's desire to allow her grandchildren to purchase her home on a contract for deed, was held not to satisfy Minn.Stat. § 524.2-701(3) (1984).

  2. Trobaugh v. Trobaugh

    397 N.W.2d 401 (Minn. Ct. App. 1987)   Cited 2 times

    Appellant moved for amendment of the trial court's findings, vacation of judgment, or a new trial. Appellant argued that the disputed writing was ambiguous and insufficient to convey any interest in decedent's house, that the decision in In re Estate of Trobaugh, 380 N.W.2d 152 (Minn. Ct. App. 1986) was res judicata as to respondents' present claim, and that hearsay evidence had been improperly admitted. The court denied appellant's motions and this appeal followed.

  3. In re Estate of Harwick

    No. A10-76 (Minn. Ct. App. Aug. 31, 2010)

    But the witness did not testify that Mildred actually made a promise to, or an agreement with, Kenneth concerning the land. See In re Estate of Trobaugh, 380 N.W.2d 152, 155 (Minn. App. 1986) (affirming district court findings concerning document that "merely stated that decedent intended to leave her house to appellants" but "made no reference . . . to any contract or agreement concerning the house"). In addition, the attorney involved in settling Harlien's estate testified that he was not aware of any oral agreement concerning a transfer of land to Kenneth.

  4. In re McKim Estate

    238 Mich. App. 453 (Mich. Ct. App. 1999)   Cited 23 times
    Holding that an oral agreement to provide for someone in a will should only be considered if there is an actual will citing the contract or a writing to that effect signed by the decedent

    In addition, allowing recovery based on an implied in fact theory would nullify the clear purpose of the statute, which is "to tighten the methods by which contracts concerning succession may be proved." Comment to § 2-701 of the Uniform Probate Code 8 ULA 438 (1998); In re Estate of Wieland v Jewett, 1998 ND 130; 581 N.W.2d 140, 144-145 (1998); In re Estate of Trobaugh, 380 N.W.2d 152, 154 (Minn App, 1986). Moreover, recognizing an exception to the statute for such a theory would reintroduce the uncertainties and litigation that the statute was designed to eliminate.