Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite In Re Estate of Reay, 249 Minn. 123.

44 citing documents.

In re the Trust Agreement of Soo K. Song dated April 28, 2016, as amended November 4, 2020, … Minn. Ct. App. 2026
“The existence of undue influence is a question of fact, and [an appellate court] will not set aside the findings of the [district] court as to undue influence unless they are manifestly and palpably contrary to the evidence as a whole, and this holds true even though [the appellate court] might have determined otherwise if it had heard the case de novo.” In re Est. of Reay , (“When the record reasonably supports the findings at issue on appeal, it is immaterial that the record might also provid
In re: Ratzlaff Family Trust Minn. Ct. App. 2026
he ceased to act of his own free volition.” In re Reay’s Estate
In Re: R.A. Morin Trust, U/A/D, April 1, 2014, As Amended, and Mark C. Morin, et al v. … Minn. Ct. App. 2024
Minn. Stat. § 524.3-.407 (2022)
In re: Ursula E. Nelson Trust under Agreement dated 3/21/2014, as Amended Minn. Ct. App. 2023
See In re Estate of Reay , (applying clear-and-convincing standard of proof to a party’s action to invalidate a will for undue influence); Agner, d at 818, 821 (applying clear-and-convincing standard to a party’s action to invalidate a decedent’s transfer of real property prior to death) .
In re: Estate of Maryetta Louise Andrews Minn. Ct. App. 2023
Minn. Stat. § 524.3-.407 (2022)
Ronald G. Davis, Personal Representative of the Estate of Roger F. Davis and Trustee of the Toivo W. … Minn. Ct. App. 2023
York v. Reay (In re Reay’s Est.), ; see also Torgersen , d at 551 (explaining that the evidence must show that the influence exerted rendered the testator “a mere puppet” (quotation omitted)).
In re the Estate of Vernon G. Engelkes, Deceased Minn. Ct. App. 2020
ator’s will); (holding that, to invalidate a will for undue influence, will contestant must show another person exercised influence over the testator when the will was executed “to the degree that the will reflects the other person’s intent instead of the testator’s intent”) (citing York v. Reay (In re Estate of Reay), ), review denied (Minn. June 20, 2006).
In re the Estate of: Stanley George Zych, Deceased, and In the Matter of the Revocable Trust Agreement … Minn. Ct. App. 2020
In re Reay’s Estate, d 277, 282 (Minn. 1957).
In re Estate of: Alice I. Engman, Decedent Minn. Ct. App. 2017
In re Estate of: Alice I. Engman, Decedent Minn. Ct. App. 2017
A party seeking to prove undue influence must prove that the influence “was so dominant and controlling of the testator’s mind that, in making the will, [she] ceased to act of [her] own free volition and became a mere puppet of the wielder of that influence.” In re Reay’s Estate, 249 Minn. 123, 126-27
In re: Estate of Loretta M. Chisholm, Decedent Minn. Ct. App. 2015
In re: Estate of Loretta M. Chisholm, Decedent Minn. Ct. App. 2015
6 will contestant must prove undue influence by clear and convincing evidence, showing that at the time the will was made there was “such dominant and persuasive force that the will of the person exercising it is substituted for the will of the testator whereby the resulting written testament expresses the intent and purpose of that person and not that of the testator.” In re Estate of Reay, 249 Minn. 123, 126
In Re Estate of Torgersen 711 N.W.2d 545 Minn. Ct. App. 2006
In Re Estate of Torgersen 711 N.W.2d 545 Minn. Ct. App. 2006
In re Estate of Reay, 249 Minn. 123, 126
In Re the Estate of Opsahl 448 N.W.2d 96 Minn. Ct. App. 1989
In Re the Estate of Opsahl 448 N.W.2d 96 Minn. Ct. App. 1989
ANALYSIS Standard of Review “[T]he existence of undue influence is a question of fact * * In re Estate of Reay, 249 Minn. 123, 124
In Re Estate of Overton 417 N.W.2d 653 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
In Re Estate of Overton 417 N.W.2d 653 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
In re Estate of Reay, 249 Minn. 123, 126
In Re the Estate of Ristau 399 N.W.2d 101 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
In Re the Estate of Ristau 399 N.W.2d 101 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
In re Estate of Reay, 249 Minn. 123, 126-27 , (footnote omitted).
In Re Estate of Larson 394 N.W.2d 617 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
In Re Estate of Larson 394 N.W.2d 617 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
In re Estate of Reay, 249 Minn. 123, 126-27 , (footnote omitted).
Matter of Estate of Rechtzigel 385 N.W.2d 827 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
Matter of Estate of Rechtzigel 385 N.W.2d 827 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
In re Estate of Reay, 249 Minn. 123, 126-27 , (footnotes omitted).
Matter of Estate of Anderson 379 N.W.2d 197 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
Matter of Estate of Anderson 379 N.W.2d 197 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
In re Estate of Reay, 249 Minn. 123, 126-27 , (footnote omitted).
Matter of Estate of Moulton 365 N.W.2d 335 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
Matter of Estate of Moulton 365 N.W.2d 335 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
In re Estate of Reay, 249 Minn. 123 , 126-27, quoted in pet.
Matter of Estate of Olsen 357 N.W.2d 407 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
Matter of Estate of Olsen 357 N.W.2d 407 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
In re Estate of Reay, 249 Minn. 123, 126-27
Matter of Estate of Congdon 309 N.W.2d 261 Minn. 1981
Matter of Estate of Congdon 309 N.W.2d 261 Minn. 1981
In re Estate of Pundt, 280 Minn. 102, 104-05 , quoting In re Estate of Reay, 249 Minn. 123, 126
In Re Probate Court, Hennepin County 198 N.W.2d 260 Minn. 1972
Balafas v. Angelos 198 N.W.2d 260 Minn. 1972
In Re Probate Court, Hennepin County 198 N.W.2d 260 Minn. 1972
NOTES [1] See, e. g., In re Estate of Anthony, 265 Minn. 382 , In re Estate of Reay, 249 Minn. 123
Balafas v. Angelos 198 N.W.2d 260 Minn. 1972
See, e. g., In re Estate of Anthony, 265 Minn. 382 , In re Estate of Reay, 249 Minn. 123
In Re Estate of Pundt 157 N.W.2d 839 Minn. 1968
Tuil v. Kelstrom 157 N.W.2d 839 Minn. 1968
In Re Estate of Pundt 157 N.W.2d 839 Minn. 1968
The rules regarding undue influence are as well stated in In re Estate of Reay, 249 Minn. 123, 126 , , as anywhere.
Tuil v. Kelstrom 157 N.W.2d 839 Minn. 1968
The rules regarding undue influence are as well stated in In re Estate of Reay, 249 Minn. 123, 126 , 81 N. W. (2d) 277, 280 , as anywhere.
In Re Estate of Anthony 265 Minn. 382 Minn. 1963
In Re Estate of Anthony 265 Minn. 382 Minn. 1963
(2d) 87 ; In re Estate of Reay, 249 Minn. 123, 126 , 81 N.W.
Leuba v. Bailey 88 N.W.2d 73 Minn. 1957
Leuba v. Bailey 88 N.W.2d 73 Minn. 1957
In In re Estate of Reay, 249 Minn. 123, 129 , 81 N. W. (2d) 277, 282 , we said that: “* * * The existence of undue influence is a question of fact, and the supreme court will not set aside the findings of the trial court as to undue influence unless they are manifestly and palpably contrary to the evidence as a whole, and this holds true even though this c