Cited by

(“We also review de novo a district court’s interpretation of a written document.”).

We will not conclude that a finding of fact is clearly erroneous unless “left with the definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been made.” (quotation omitted).

We “review de novo a district court’s interpretation of a written document, which in this case is the Trust Agreement.”

Appellate courts “review de novo a district court’s interpretation of a written document, which in this case is the Trust Agreement.”

“When the trust agreement is unambiguous, [appellate courts] will ascertain the grantor’s intent from the language of the agreement, without resort[ing] to extrinsic evidence.”

The district court also considered Bjorkman’s concern that the estate may become insolvent, but found that “Lighthouse’s counsel’s representations at the November 13, 2024, hearing are sufficient to allay the Court’s concern that the estate is at risk of insolvency at present.” We “defer to the district court’s opportunity to assess the credibility of witnesses.”

“We review a district court’s findings of fact under the clearly erroneous standard.”

are clearly erroneous,” appellate courts must be “left with the definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been made.”

Appellant argues that although the district court defined the term “issue” under existing caselaw, it “did not consider [a]ppellant’s argument that the internal evidence in the trust suggested a different meaning.” When courts interpret the language of a trust agreement, they “generally construe words and phrases according to their common and approved usage.”

“A district court abuses its discretion when its decision is based on an erroneous view of the law or is inconsistent with the facts in the record.”

7 A court’s “purpose in construing a trust agreement is to ascertain and give effect to the grantor’s intent.”

A court’s purpose in interpreting a trust agreement is to “ascertain and give effect to the grantor’s intent.” rev. denied (Minn. June 26, 2013).

In re Pamela Andreas Stisser Grantor Trust , ; (providing that “[f]actual issues embedded in a discretionary determination are reviewed for clear error”).

A court’s “purpose in construing a trust agreement is to ascertain and give effect to the grantor’s intent.”

We interpret trusts “to ascertain and give effect to the grantor’s intent.”

The district court’s factual findings are clearly erroneous if “we are left with the definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been made.” (quotation omitted).

“A district court abuses its discretion when its decision is based on an erroneous view of the law or is inconsistent with the facts in the record.”

When interpreting a statute, we construe words and phrases “according to rules of grammar and according to their common and approved usage.” Minn. Stat. § 645.08(1) (2020); (citing Minn. § 645.08(1) (2010) in a trust dispute) .

If a court is required to interpret a trus t agreement, the court’s purpose “is to ascertain and give effect to the grantor’s intent.” d 495, 502 (Minn. 2012).

(citation omitted) (internal quotation marks omitted).

d 495, 507 (Minn. 2012).

In re Stisser Grantor Trust , 02 (Minn. 2012).

(stating issues of statutory inte rpretation are questions of law); (indicating that interpretation of a trust agreement presents a question of law).

In interpreting a trust agreement, a court should seek “to ascertain and give effect to the grantor’s intent.”

(stating that appellate 20 courts “defer to the district court’s opportunity to assess the credibility of witnesses”).

19 We review a district court’s award of attorney fees for an abuse of discretion, -10 (Minn. 2012) , as well as an order of sanctions, see Collins v. Waconia Dodge, Inc. , review denied (Minn. Mar.