Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite In re the Pamela Andreas Stisser Grantor Trust, 818 N.W.2d 495.

128 citing documents.

Taras Lendzyk v. Laura Lee Wrazidlo, Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc., a Delaware corporation Minn. Ct. App. 2015
In re the Estate of: Barbara Jean LaPoint Minn. Ct. App. 2015
In re the Estate of: Barbara Jean LaPoint Minn. Ct. App. 2015
my legal debts” has a “well-understood technical meaning” and “does not authorize a testator’s personal representative or executor to pay the testator’s secured obligations.”
In re the Estate of: Leonard J. Marihart, Decedent. Minn. Ct. App. 2015
In re the Estate of: Leonard J. Marihart, Decedent. Minn. Ct. App. 2015
d 495, 508 (Minn. 2012) (stating that “the complete lack of evidence supporting [the] claim [for compensation of expenses] leaves us in no position to question the [district] court”).
Wayne Earl Dahl v. Stephen Sean Cummings Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Wayne Earl Dahl v. Stephen Sean Cummings Minn. Ct. App. 2015
David Dennis Schroer v. Thomas Redmond Minn. Ct. App. 2015
David Dennis Schroer v. Thomas Redmond Minn. Ct. App. 2015
In Re: Amendment and Restatement of Revocable Living Trust of Alfred J. Berget dated February 15, 2005. Minn. Ct. App. 2014
In Re: Amendment and Restatement of Revocable Living Trust of Alfred J. Berget dated February 15, 2005. Minn. Ct. App. 2014
A court’s “purpose in construing a trust agreement is to ascertain and give effect to the grantor’s intent.”
Michael J. Larkin, Linda K. Larkin v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., Susan Schulze Hoff, Christina Larkin Minn. Ct. App. 2014
Michael J. Larkin, Linda K. Larkin v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., Susan Schulze Hoff, Christina Larkin Minn. Ct. App. 2014
Sterling State Bank v. Maas Commercial Properties, LLC Minn. Ct. App. 2014
Sterling State Bank v. Maas Commercial Properties, LLC Minn. Ct. App. 2014
We “assign unambiguous contract language its plain meaning,” d 793, 796–97 (Minn. 2011), which we may ascertain by consulting dictionaries, see, (consulting dictionary to ascertain ordinary meaning of phrase in trust agreement).
County of Hennepin v. 1010 Metrodome Square, LLC Minn. Ct. App. 2014
County of Hennepin v. 1010 Metrodome Square, LLC Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State v. Nelson 842 N.W.2d 433 Minn. 2014
State v. Williams 842 N.W.2d 308 Minn. 2014
State v. Williams 842 N.W.2d 308 Minn. 2014
See, (finding lower court did not abuse its discretion in awarding attorney fees because the court’s decision was not based on an erroneous view of the law or lack of evidentiary support).
Rasmussen v. Two Harbors Fish Co. 832 N.W.2d 790 Minn. 2013
Marine Credit Union v. Detlefson-Delano 830 N.W.2d 859 Minn. 2013
Marine Credit Union v. Detlefson-Delano 830 N.W.2d 859 Minn. 2013
Rasmussen v. Two Harbors Fish Co. 832 N.W.2d 790 Minn. 2013
In re G.B. Van Dusen Marital Trust 834 N.W.2d 514 Minn. Ct. App. 2013
In re G.B. Van Dusen Marital Trust 834 N.W.2d 514 Minn. Ct. App. 2013
A court’s purpose in interpreting a trust agreement is to “ascertain and give effect to the grantor’s intent.”
Mosloski v. Spencer 825 N.W.2d 753 Minn. Ct. App. 2012
Mosloski v. Spencer 825 N.W.2d 753 Minn. Ct. App. 2012
See, (referring to document creating trust as “agreement”); Bruggeman v. Jerry’s Enterprises, Inc., -09 (Minn.1999) (explaining that “deed” is final expression of parties’ “agreements”).