Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Matter of Estate of Congdon, 309 N.W.2d 261.

47 citing documents.

In re the Trust Agreement of Soo K. Song dated April 28, 2016, as amended November 4, 2020, … Minn. Ct. App. 2026
In re the Estate of: Lavonne Eleanor Kranz, Deceased Minn. Ct. App. 2024
In re the Estate of: Lavonne Eleanor Kranz, Deceased Minn. Ct. App. 2024
A person lacks testamentary capacity only if, when making their will, they do not understand the nature and extent of their property and others’ claims to it or cannot “form a rational judgment concerning them.” In re Congdon’s Est., d 261, 266 (Minn. 1981) (quotation omitted).
In re: Ursula E. Nelson Trust under Agreement dated 3/21/2014, as Amended Minn. Ct. App. 2023
presented establishes that influence was exerted over another and “that the influence was so dominant and controlling of the influenced party’s mind that, in making the contract, the influence d party ceased to act of his or her own free will, becoming a mere puppet of the wielder of that influence.” (quot ing (defining undue influence in the context of whether a party unduly influenced the testator when the testator drafted her will)).
Distinguished In re the Estate of: Stanley George Zych, Deceased, and In the Matter of the Revocable Trust Agreement … Minn. Ct. App. 2020
But medical-expert testimony is neither necessary nor conclusive of testamentary capacity and “is merely evidence to be weighed and considered by the trier of fact.” In re Congdon’s Estate
In re the Estate of: Norman Sebert Larson, Deceased Minn. Ct. App. 2020
(quoting In re Estate of Congdon , n.7 (Minn. 1981)).
In the Matter of the Trust Created by Eileen Carlson Kasell, dated September 10, 2013, as amended Minn. Ct. App. 2018
A person has the necessary testamentary capacity to execute a will or trust if she “understands the nature, situation, and extent of [her] property and the claims of others on [her] bounty or [her] remembrance,” and she is “able to hold these things in [her] mind long enough to form a rational judgment concerning them.” (quotation omitted ).
In re the Estate of Harry L. Housker, Decedent Minn. Ct. App. 2015
In re the Estate of Harry L. Housker, Decedent Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Findings are clearly erroneous “only if the reviewing court on the entire evidence is left with the definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been committed.” n.7 (Minn. 1981) (quotation omitted).
Beaulieu v. Minnesota Department of Human Services 825 N.W.2d 716 Minn. 2013
Beaulieu v. Minnesota Department of Human Services 825 N.W.2d 716 Minn. 2013
(explaining that “the different degree of the burden of proof between criminal and civil cases also precludes application of the doctrine of ‘res judicata’ ”); United States v. One Assortment of 89 Firearms, 465 U.S. 354, 362 , 104 S.Ct.
In Re the Guardianship & Conservatorship of Doyle 778 N.W.2d 342 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
In Re the Guardianship & Conservatorship of Doyle 778 N.W.2d 342 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
The district court’s findings will not be disturbed unless this court, after reviewing the evidence, “is left with the definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been committed.” , 266 n. 7 (Minn.1981) (quotation omitted).
Nelson v. Holland 776 N.W.2d 446 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
Nelson v. Holland 776 N.W.2d 446 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
To prove undue influence, the evidence must establish not only that influence was exerted, but also that the influence was so dominant and controlling of the influenced party’s mind that, in making the contract, the influenced party ceased to act of his or her own free will, becoming “a mere puppet of the wielder of that influence.” (involving *452 undue influence over testator when drafting will).
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
The evidence must show that the influence exerted “was so dominant and controlling of the testator’s mind that, in making the will, he ceased to act of his own free volition and became a mere puppet of the wielder of that influence.” (quotation omitted).
Norwest Bank Minnesota North, N.A. v. Beckler 663 N.W.2d 571 Minn. Ct. App. 2003
Norwest Bank Minnesota North, N.A. v. Beckler 663 N.W.2d 571 Minn. Ct. App. 2003
Fisher v. Schefers 656 N.W.2d 592 Minn. Ct. App. 2003
Fisher v. Schefers 656 N.W.2d 592 Minn. Ct. App. 2003
(citation omitted) (in the context of will drafting).
State v. Wagner 637 N.W.2d 330 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
State v. Wagner 637 N.W.2d 330 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
Collateral estoppel is “a form of res judicata whereby a former judgment is conclusive in a later suit between the same parties or their privies.” Matter of Congdon’s Estate, (emphasis omitted) (citation omitted).
Francis v. Piper 597 N.W.2d 922 Minn. Ct. App. 1999
Francis v. Piper 597 N.W.2d 922 Minn. Ct. App. 1999
But (conservatorship, however, not determinative of testamentary capacity).
In Re the Estate of McCue 449 N.W.2d 509 Minn. Ct. App. 1990
Matter of Jasmer 447 N.W.2d 192 Minn. 1989
Matter of Jasmer 447 N.W.2d 192 Minn. 1989
1 (1988); cf -70 (Minn.1981) (homicide acquittal did not preclude a subsequent civil proceeding to determine entitlement to inherit under will and trusts).
In Re the Estate of Lange 398 N.W.2d 569 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
In Re the Estate of Lange 398 N.W.2d 569 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
In Re Estate of Novotny 385 N.W.2d 841 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
Matter of Estate of Rechtzigel 385 N.W.2d 827 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
In Re Estate of Novotny 385 N.W.2d 841 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
A testator will be found to have testamentary capacity if, when making the will, he understands “the nature, situation, and extent of his property and the claims of others on his bounty or his remembrance, and he [is] able to hold these things in his mind long enough to form a rational judgment concerning them.” Prigge, d at 444 ().
Matter of Estate of Rechtzigel 385 N.W.2d 827 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
In Re the Estate of Anderson 384 N.W.2d 518 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
In Re the Estate of Anderson 384 N.W.2d 518 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
Findings are “clearly erroneous” only if “the reviewing court on the entire evidence is left with the definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been committed.” , 266 n. 7 (Minn.1981) (quoting In re Estate of Balafas, 293 Minn. 94 , 96, , 261 (1972).
In Re the Estate of Tourville 366 N.W.2d 380 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
In Re the Estate of Tourville 366 N.W.2d 380 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
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
§ 524.3-407 (1982); n. 8 (1981).
Matter of Estate of Prigge 352 N.W.2d 443 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
Matter of Estate of Prigge 352 N.W.2d 443 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
A testator will be found to have testamentary capacity if, when making the will, he understands “the nature, situation, and extent of his property and the claims of others on his bounty or his remembrance, and he [is] able to hold these things in his mind long enough to form a rational judgment concerning them.” (quoting, In re Estate of Healy, 243 Minn. 383, 386 , ).
Crolley v. O'Hare International Bank 346 N.W.2d 156 Minn. 1984
Crolley v. O'Hare International Bank 346 N.W.2d 156 Minn. 1984
Vesey v. Vesey, 237 Minn. 10 , (construing a prior constitutional provision).
State v. Lawrence 312 N.W.2d 251 Minn. 1981