Opinion
A23-1440
06-07-2024
In re the Estate of Jerry Lee Wallace, a/k/a Jerry L. Wallace and Jerry Wallace, Deceased.
St. Louis County District Court File No. 69DU-PR-23-21
Considered and decided by Larkin, Presiding Judge; Frisch, Judge; and Larson, Judge.
ORDER OPINION
Jennifer L. Frisch Judge
BASED ON THE FILE, RECORD, AND PROCEEDINGS, AND BECAUSE:
1. In this probate appeal, appellant Denita E. Beck challenges the probate court's order determining that a purported 2022 handwritten will of Jerry Lee Wallace (decedent) was invalid and in admitting decedent's 1998 will to probate.
2. On January 17, 2023, decedent's son filed a petition for formal probate of decedent's will, enclosing an electronic copy of a will prepared for the decedent in 1998. On March 3, Beck, the long-term partner of decedent, filed a handwritten document purporting to be decedent's 2022 will. On March 13, Beck filed a petition for formal probate of the handwritten will. The probate court denied Beck's petition, concluding that the handwritten will was not valid because it did not include the decedent's signature or an equivalent third-party signature at the decedent's direction. Beck appeals.
3. Probate court "findings of fact will be disturbed only if clearly erroneous." In re Est. of Sullivan, 868 N.W.2d 750, 752 (Minn.App. 2015) (quotation omitted). And "[w]hether a will is executed in a manner prescribed by statute is a question of fact." Id.
4. "[F]or a will to be valid it must be (1) in writing, (2) signed by the testator, and (3) signed by at least two individuals within a reasonable time after witnessing the signing of the will." Id.; see also Minn. Stat. § 524.2-502 (2022). And for a will to be valid, a "testator must strictly comply with the statutory formalities" of execution. Sullivan, 868 N.W.2d at 752 (citing In re Ludwig's Est., 81 N.W. 758, 760-61 (Minn. 1900)). Beck, as the proponent of the handwritten will, has "the burden of establishing prima facie proof of due execution" of that will. Minn. Stat. § 524.3-407 (2022).
5. The probate court's determination that the handwritten will is not valid is supported by the record. The record contains a reproduction of the handwritten will reflecting a blank space next to the testator's name. The reproduction also shows signatures in corresponding spaces next to witness names. The probate court's conclusion that the handwritten will is not signed by the decedent was therefore not clearly erroneous. And the probate court properly concluded that the handwritten will does not strictly comply with the statutory formalities set forth in Minn. Stat. § 524.2-502.
6. Because the handwritten will is not valid, it cannot form the basis of Beck's argument that the document effectively revoked the decedent's 1998 will. See Sullivan, 868 N.W.2d at 754 (noting that a revocatory act on a previously executed will must be executed according to statutory formalities to be effective); Minn. Stat. § 524.3-407 (establishing the burden of a contestant and providing that "if a will is opposed by the petition for probate of a later will revoking the former," the first step is determining if a later will is entitled to probate). The probate court did not err in declining to admit the handwritten will to probate.
7. Beck also appears to argue that she did not receive proper notice of the initial hearing regarding the petition to admit the 1998 will to probate. The probate code requires a petitioner to notify interested persons "of the time and place of [the probate] hearing." Minn. Stat. § 524.1-401(a) (2022). If "notice of a hearing on any petition is required," three permissible methods are available: mailing a copy of the petition at least 14 days before the hearing, delivering a copy of the petition personally at least 14 days before the hearing, or "if the address, or identity of any person is not known and cannot be ascertained with reasonable diligence," publishing notice in a legal newspaper in the county where the hearing is to be held for two consecutive weeks with the last publication occurring at least ten days before the hearing. Id. (a)(1)-(3).
8. We disagree with Beck's assertion that she did not receive proper notice of the petition filed by decedent's son. We note that it is not apparent that Beck raised this issue before the probate court. See In re Est. of Hadaway, 668 N.W.2d 920, 924 (Minn.App. 2003) (citing Thiele v. Stich, 425 N.W.2d 580, 582-83 (Minn. 1988)) (holding that we would not consider an issue not argued to the district court). Even so, the probate court's finding that proper notice was given is supported by the record, which reflects that notice was published during two successive weeks in the Proctor Journal, a publication in St. Louis County. And Beck does not appear to argue that notice in another form is required by statute. Thus, the probate court did not err in determining that Beck received adequate notice of the petition and in admitting the 1998 will to probate.
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED:
1. The probate court's order is affirmed.
2. Pursuant to Minn. R. Civ. App. P. 136.01, subd. 1(c), this order opinion is nonprecedential, except as law of the case, res judicata, or collateral estoppel.