Cited by

rev. denied (Minn. June 20, 2006).

(reviewing the denial of attorney fees under section 524.3-720 for an abuse of discretion), rev. denied (Minn. June 20, 2006).

Although Alisha asks us to instead apply a mixed review standard of “both abuse of discretion and de novo,” the latter standard applies to statutory-interpretation issues, rev. denied (Minn. June 20, 2006), and her argument does not require us to interpret any statute.

rev. denied (Minn. June 20, 2006) (stating that a person contesting a will bears the burden of proving lack of testamentary capacity or undue influence).

rev. denied (Minn. June 20, 2006).

rev. denied (Minn. June 20, 2006); see also Minn. R. Civ.

The public policy underlying this statute “recognize[s] that an estate as an entity is benefited when genuine controversies as to the validity or construction of a will are litigated and finally determined.” (emphasis added) (quotation omitted), rev. denied (Minn. June 20, 2006).

A will contestant must show that 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.” , rev. denied (Minn. June 20, 2006).

To establish undue influence in the probate context—the context that both parties invoke in this case —the will contestant must show that another person influenced the testator at the time the testator executed the will “to the degree that the will reflects the other person’s intent instead of the testator’s intent.” d 545, 550 (Minn. App. 2006), rev. denied (Minn. June 20, 2006); Teschendorf v. Strangeway (In re Wilson’s Est.), (“Undue influence, as the term itself implies, is influence of such

See 24 Mary Alice Fleming & John R. Bedosky, Minnesota Practice § 3:1 (2021 ed.) (listing six steps in the “Formal Probate Process”); see also, -51 (Minn. App. 2006) (explaining the burden of proof for contesting the validity of a will and listing factors a court should consider when determining whether a will was validly executed), rev. de nied (Minn. June 20, 2006).

xerted upon the testator by another that it destroys or overcomes the testator’s free agency and substitutes the will of the person exercising the influence for that of the testator.” Teschendorf v. Strangeway ( In re Wilson’s Estate ), (affirming district court’s determination that undue influence affected testator’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 de

review denied (Minn. June 20, 2006).

In re Estate of Torgersen , review denied (Minn. June 20, 2006 ).

Respondents contend that Frank’s estate is responsible for the mortgage balance because Frank was the “last surviving person that signed the Note.” “On appeal from a probate court’s decision after a trial without a jury, findings of fact will be disturbed only if clearly erroneous.” In re Estate of Torgersen , d 545, 550 (Minn. App. 2006), review denied (Minn. June 20, 2006).

review denied (Minn. Jun.

review denied (Minn. June 20, 2006).

20, 2009); see In re Estate of Torgersen , (recognizing that public policy supporting statute is “that an estate as an entity is benefited when genuine controversies as to the validit y or construction of a will are litigated and finally determined” (quotation omitted)) , review denied (Minn. June 20, 2006) .

review denied (Minn. June 20, 2006) (“Based on the evidence in the record, we cannot conclude that the district court’s credibility findings are clearly erroneous.”).

review denied (Minn. June 20, 2006).

review denied (Minn. June 20, 2006); see also Minn. R. Civ.

On appeal from a probate court’s decision, “findings of fact will be disturbed only if clearly erroneous.” review denied (Minn. June 20, 2006).

review denied (Minn. June 20, 2006).

review denied (Minn. June 20, 2006).

See In re Estate of Baumgartner, 274 Minn. 337, 345 , (holding, in the context of probate proceedings, that although a substantial amount of legal work was done prior to the appointment of the administrator, it ultimately inured to the benefit of the estate and should be compensated from the estate); (stating that section 524.3-720 contemplates persons who have been nominated as personal representatives in wills that have not been admitted to probate prosecuting or defending will contests and re