Opinion
A20-1648
08-25-2021
In re the Supervised Estate of: Ronald Dale Goenner, a/k/a Ronald D Goenner and Ronald Goenner, Deceased.
Hennepin County District Court File No. 27-PA-PR-18-1391
Considered and decided by Bryan, Presiding Judge; Segal, Chief Judge; and Frisch, Judge.
ORDER OPINION
Jennifer L. Frisch, Judge
BASED ON THE FILE, RECORD, AND PROCEEDINGS, AND BECAUSE:
1. On October 6, 2017, decedent Ronald Dale Goenner passed away. He was survived by his four children: appellant Belinda Goenner, respondent Michael Goenner, Kelly Goenner, and Stacy Apple. On October 31, 2018, Michael filed a petition to probate a copy of the decedent's will dated July 6, 2009, and to be appointed as the estate's personal representative pursuant to the nomination in the will.
2. On January 22, 2019, the parties appeared for a hearing before a referee. Michael appeared with counsel. Belinda appeared through attorney Keith Broady but d id not appear personally. Michael testified that the decedent's remaining estate consisted of funds in various financial accounts totaling over $75,000. Michael claimed that the original will had been executed in the presence of an attorney in Ohio, that it complied with Ohio law at the time of its execution, that it had been sent via mail to a law firm in Minnesota, and that it could not be located following decedent's death. Belinda's counsel indicated that Belinda was not at that time contesting the probate of the decedent's will and requested that the administration of the estate be supervised. The district court granted the petition subject to supervised administration, formally probated the July 6, 2009 will, and appointed Michael as the estate's personal representative. On March 6, attorney Broady filed a notice of withdrawal of representation of Belinda.
3. Pursuant to the provisions of the will and the decedent's restated and amended revocable living trust, Michael was to divide the residue of the decedent's estate into four shares: one 10% share to be distributed to Kelly and three 30% shares to be distributed to Michael, Stacy, and Belinda.
4. On June 13, Michael served a petition to allow a final account and distribute the estate. The petition indicated that the estate's debts had been settled and sought an order permitting the distribution of the remainder of the decedent's estate-$76,121.14- in shares according to the trust provisions. Stacy and Kelly consented.
5. On July 2, attorney Alan Eidsness of respondent Henson & Efron, P.A., filed a certificate of representation on behalf of Belinda. On August 15, Henson & Efron filed an objection on Belinda's behalf, indicating that she had requested additional information regarding the disposition of the decedent's home, dental office, dental practice, and related sales proceeds.
6. At Belinda's request, the district court continued the scheduled hearing and issued a scheduling order. The parties engaged in discovery and, in the months that followed, Henson & Efron sought information regarding the decedent's assets on Belinda's behalf. In January 2020, the district court continued the matter again. On March 6, attorney Eidsness withdrew from representing Belinda in the matter. Belinda proceeded pro se on her objection and filed motions seeking additional information from Michael. On May 7, the district court continued the matter a third time to afford Michael additional time to provide documentation to Belinda and so that Belinda could retain new counsel.
7. On August 17, the parties appeared for a trial. The district court received various exhibits, including, but not limited to, (1) the decedent's will and trust documents, (2) the prior order probating the will and appointing Michael as the estate's personal representative, (3) Michael's various responses to Belinda's discovery requests, (4) documents relating to the decedent's financial accounts and previously owned real estate, and (5) an affidavit of a purported handwriting expert suggesting that the decedent's signature had been forged on a 2004 quitclaim deed transferring the decedent's residential and business properties from the decedent to his trust.
8. Michael testified about the contents of the decedent's will and trust documents, the direction to distribute the residue of the estate in three 30% shares and one 10% share, Michael's appointment as a personal representative, the value of financial accounts subject to distribution, and his service as the estate's personal representative. He claimed he was unaware of any assets other than those included in the inventory filed with the court. Michael also testified that, following Belinda's objection to the petition, Belinda never filed an objection regarding Michael's actions as the estate's personal representative. Regarding Belinda's various requests for information, Michael testified that his attorneys had provided deeds of sale and authorizations for releases of financial information. Michael testified that, at the time of the last amended petition for a final account and distribution, there was $49,694.99 available in the estate for distribution. He claimed that the reduction in value was caused by attorney fees attributable to Belinda's actions in the estate's administration.
9. Belinda testified about various issues, claiming that (1) the decedent was moved illegally from Ohio to Minnesota and that his property and money were illegally transferred; (2) the will and trust were fraudulent; (3) there was "another will" known to Michael but withheld by him; (4) the decedent's marriage was invalid; and (5) the proceeds from the sale of the decedent's home and dental office were misappropriated and removed from the trust assets. Belinda also claimed that she had never received signed beneficiary designations during discovery and expressed her desire "to see who [the decedent's] designated beneficiaries are, were, or if they changed when he signed it."
10. After the trial had concluded, Belinda filed a petition to remove Michael as the personal representative, alleging that Michael had knowledge of another will but had failed to disclose it and that it was possible that Michael was not disclosing other information. On November 12, Michael filed a third amended final account and proposal for distribution indicating that attorney fees had reduced the distributable estate funds to $23,332.51. Belinda filed a motion to compel the disclosure of additional documents.
11. On December 1, the district court issued its findings, conclusions, and order. It found that (1) Michael's testimony was credible and supported by documentary evidence, (2) the July 6, 2009 will was properly probated, (3) the final petition accounted for "every part of the estate," and (4) the estate comprised $23,332.51 in distributable funds. The district court meanwhile found that Belinda had failed to substantiate her claims with sufficient evidence. The district court denied Belinda's request to remove Michael as the personal representative, determining that "[t]he evidence before the Court d[id] not support [Belinda's] claim that the estate has not been properly administered and that the Personal Representative should be removed." The district court denied Belinda's motion to compel as untimely given that the matter concluded upon the parties' submission of written closing statements. Finally, the district court allowed the final account, confirmed Michael's acts as personal representative, and ordered the distribution of cash.
The district court reasoned that (1) Belinda had failed to challenge the will as fraudulent when it was initially probated and the deadline to appeal the determination had expired, and (2) testimony from Belinda's handwriting expert was inadmissible hearsay.
12. Henson & Efron had meanwhile been working toward an award of unpaid attorney fees. On April 9, 2020, Henson & Efron filed a notice of intent to claim an attorney's lien on Belinda's interest in the estate in the amount of $12,994.15. On August 3, Henson & Efron filed a notice of motion and motion for attorney fees, supporting the motion with an attorney affidavit, the firm's fee agreement with Belinda, and invoice summaries with descriptions of work performed.
13. On September 14, the parties appeared for a hearing on the attorney-fee motion. Attorney Eidsness detailed his firm's discussions with Belinda, her choice of strategies, and the circumstances of the firm's withdrawal. He testified that Belinda paid a $20,000 retainer fee, the balance of which had been exhausted by bills for work performed, and he requested an award of $13,497.47 in attorney fees and late fees. Belinda raised various issues, arguing that certain charges were unaccompanied by initials and time increments, that some line items did not correspond with events in the register of actions, that she had to pay money for a certificate of representation, that Henson & Efron could not properly track the retainer funds and invoice balances in its trust account, and that counsel had generally failed to perform diligently in pursuing necessary information.
14. On December 7, the district court issued an order granting the motion for attorney fees. It found that attorney Eidsness's affidavit established: (1) a description of each item of work, when and how long it was performed, the identity of the attorney or assistant performing the work, and the relevant rate; (2) the normal hourly rates and an explanation of differences in rates; (3) itemizations of amounts sought for disbursements or expenses; and (4) that the work had been reviewed for accuracy and was necessary to represent the client. The district court noted Belinda's dissatisfaction with counsel's services but found that "there was no evidence presented that [Henson & Efron] did not perform the services that were billed, that the services billed did not relate to the representation, or that [Henson & Efron] in any way breached the contract that would excuse Belinda from her obligation to pay for the services rendered." The district court ordered Michael to pay Henson & Efron $13,497.47 from Belinda's share of the decedent's estate.
15. Belinda appeals the order granting Michael's petition for final account and distribution and the order granting Henson & Efron's motion for attorney fees.
16. Belinda suggests that the district court abused its discretion by continuing the trial, claims that she "was not le[]gally represented" at the January 22, 2019 hearing because attorney Broady had not filed a certificate of representation or notice of appearance, contends that attorney Eidsness should be disbarred or held liable for $650,000, and asks that we order attorney Broady's law firm to refund any money she paid for its services. We deem these arguments forfeited because Belinda did not object to the various continuances, did not argue that the proceedings were defective due to the absence of a notice of appearance by attorney Broady, did not move for sanctions of any variety against attorney Eidsness, and made no argument regarding fees owed to attorney Broady's firm. See Thiele v. Stich, 425 N.W.2d 580, 582 (Minn. 1988) (indicating that we must generally consider only issues presented to and decided by a district court). We add that Belinda's arguments are also forfeited for inadequate briefing. See Scheffler v. City of Anoka, 890 N.W.2d 437, 451 (Minn.App. 2017) (explaining that assignments of error on mere assertion are forfeited unless prejudicial error is obvious), review denied (Minn. Apr. 26, 2017). Belinda cites no authority for the proposition that an attorney's failure to notice his appearance renders his representation ineffectual, and she fails to develop any argument regarding the other issues.
We also note that (1) Belinda testified at trial that attorney Broady did represent her at the January 22, 2019 hearing, and (2) Belinda's appellate brief admits she "signed an agreement contract" with attorney Broady's firm and that he appeared at the hearing "for and on behalf of" her.
17. Belinda suggests that the district court erred in granting Michael's petition. She requests a new hearing with a different judge and invites us to "re-evaluate any further actions for the [e]state." A district court may determine testacy, consider a final account, construe a will, and order distribution of an estate pursuant to Minn. Stat. § 524.3-1001 (2020). A district court may remove a personal representative if it is in the estate's best interests or if the personal representative misrepresented material facts, disregard ed an order of the court, mismanaged the estate, failed to perform duties owed, or becomes incapable of discharging his duties. Minn. Stat. § 524.3-611 (2020). We review a district court's findings for clear error and its legal conclusions de novo. In re Tr. Created Under Agreement with Lane, 660 N.W.2d 421, 426 (Minn.App. 2003). Belinda fails to identify any clearly erroneous findings by the district court or any misapplication of law. She develops no discernable argument as to how the district court erred in granting Michael's petition or denying her posthearing motions to compel or remove Michael as a personal representative. We have carefully reviewed the record and do not find any prejudicial error on mere inspection; the district court's findings are supported by the record and its conclusions are supported by the law. Accordingly, we deem any potential argument forfeited. See Scheffler, 890 N.W.2d at 451.
18. Belinda also argues that Henson & Efron should "refund all the money [she] paid for their services" and suggests that counsel's services were deficient. We liberally construe the assertions as a challenge to the order granting the motion for attorney fees. We review a district court's award of attorney fees for an abuse of discretion. Minn. Humane Soc'y v. Minn. Federated Humane Soc'y, 611 N.W.2d 587, 590-91 (Minn. 2000). Here, Belinda fails to present any argument for reversal. She identifies no clearly erroneous finding by the district court nor any misapplication of law, and her mere suggestion of error is insufficient to support reversal. We deem any potential argument forfeited. See Scheffler, 890 N.W.2d at 452.
19. Belinda's brief hints at other potential issues, but she fails to develop any discernible argument warranting reversal. We deem any potential remaining issues forfeited. See id.
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED:
1. The district court's orders are 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.