In re the Estate of Meloy Lee Brandsrud, Deceased.

This opinion is nonprecedential except as provided by
Minn. R. Civ. App. P. 136.01, subd. 1(c).

STATE OF MINNESOTA
IN COURT OF APPEALS
A21-1232

In re the Estate of Meloy Lee Brandsrud, Deceased.

Filed May 31, 2022
Affirmed; motions denied
Wheelock, Judge

Hennepin County District Court
File No. 27-PA-PR-20-1665

Scott Brandsrud, Hesperia, California (pro se appellant)

James M. Kempainen, Bloomington, Minnesota (for respondent Dawn Hespenheide)

Considered and decided by Wheelock, Presiding Judge; Jesson, Judge; and Bryan,
Judge.
NONPRECEDENTIAL OPINION
WHEELOCK, Judge
In this probate dispute, appellant Scott Brandsrud argues that the district court erred
by determining that respondent Dawn Hespenheide has standing to petition for formal
probate of the will and appointment of a personal representative. Because the decedent
designated Hespenheide as the successor personal representative in his will, she has
standing to bring her petition. Brandsrud also filed four motions with this court regarding
the record on appeal. Our review of the record indicates that Brandsrud’s motions
regarding the record lack merit. We therefore deny Brandsrud’s motions and affirm the
district court.
2
FACTS
The decedent passed away in November 2020. In his will, the decedent nominated
his brother-in-law Donald Hedlund to serve as personal representative and his niece-in-law
Hespenheide to serve as the successor personal representative if Hedlund was “unable or
unwilling to serve as the Personal Representative.”
In early December 2020, Hedlund renounced his nomination and nominated
Hespenheide to serve as personal representative. The next day, the decedent’s nephew,
Brandsrud, petitioned for formal probate of the will and appointment of a personal
representative. In his petition, Brandsrud requested that the district court invalidate the
will and appoint him as personal representative of the intestate estate. His petition included
a schedule of heirs and interested persons, listing himself, another nephew, two
great-nieces, Hedlund, and Hespenheide.
Hespenheide objected to Brandsrud’s petition and petitioned for formal probate of
the will and appointment of a personal representative. Hespenheide sought to probate the
will as written and to appoint herself as the personal representative, supporting her petition
with Hedlund’s renunciation and nomination of her as his successor. Brandsrud objected,
claiming that Hespenheide’s petition contained errors and that the will was fraudulent.
The parties filed several motions in this case, but the motions relevant to this appeal
are Brandsrud’s motion to dismiss for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction and motion for
summary judgment on Hespenheide’s entitlement to petition. The district court denied
both motions, determining that it properly exercised subject-matter jurisdiction over the
3
matter and that Hespenheide had standing to petition as a nominated successor personal
representative and interested person. Brandsrud appeals.
Also, on vario us dates after filing this appeal, Brandsrud filed six motions in this
court requesting that we (1) correct the record on appeal by adding a document purportedly
missing from the record on appeal; (2) direct the district court administrator to send him a
copy of the index of the documents transmitted to this court as the record on appeal;
(3) direct the district court administrator to correct the appellate case number shown on the
index of the items in the record transmitted to this court; (4) add to the record on appeal an
index of the record that was before the district court; (5) expedite the release of our opinion
in this appeal ; and (6) reverse a portion of the district court’s May 4, 2022 order setting
trial for this matter in early June 2022. The fifth and sixth motions are unrelated to the
record on appeal.
DECISION
Brandsrud’s motions regarding the appellate record lack merit.
We first address the motions Brandsrud filed during the pendency of this appeal.
First, the document Brandsrud asserts is missing from the record on appeal was included
in the record on appeal and was both presented to and considered by this court in deciding
this appeal. Second, Brandsrud requested that we direct the district court administrator to
send him a copy of the index of the documents transmitted to this court as the record on
appeal. We observe, however, that the next motion Brandsrud filed included a copy of the
index he was seeking. Therefore, he was provided with a copy of that index. Third, the
error Brandsrud asserts is in the appellate file number on the index of the record transmitted
4
to this court affected neither our identification of the contents of the record for this appeal
nor the outcome of this appeal. Fourth, the court already has the index Brandsrud wanted
added to the record on appeal, as we received that index on December 2, 2021, for purposes
of this appeal. Accordingly, we deny Brandsrud’s four record-related motions.
Brandsrud’s fifth and sixth motions were denied by separate orders of this court filed on
May 9, 2022, and May 16, 2022.
Hespenheide has standing to petition.
Brandsrud argues that Hespenheide lacks standing to petition for formal probate and
appointment of a personal representative because the will is invalid.1 2
“Whether a party has standing is a question of law that appellate courts review de
novo.” In re Horton Irrevocable Tr., 668 N.W.2d 208, 212 (Minn. App. 2003). “Standing

1 Although Brandsrud characterizes his arguments as challenges to subject-matter
jurisdiction and standing, his brief focuses solely on standing. To the extent that Brandsrud
challenges the district court’s subject-matter jurisdiction, his challenge fails as a matter of
law. Minnesota Statutes section 524.1-302(a) confers jurisdiction on the district court over
all matters “relating to estates of decedents, including construction of wills and
determination of heirs and successors of decedents.” Minn. Stat. § 524.1-302(a) (2020).
This case fits within that statutory grant of jurisdiction.

2 Some of the arguments Brandsrud makes to challenge the district court’s order may stem
from a misunderstanding of the probate process. We clarify that under probate law, a will
is generally treated as valid unless and until it is successfully challenged at a hearing later
in the formal probate process. See 24 Mary Alice Fleming & John R. Bedosky, Minnesota
Practice § 3:1 (2021 ed.) (listing six steps in the “Formal Probate Process”); see also, e.g.,
In re Est. of Torgersen, 711 N.W.2d 545, 550-51 (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).
Thus, even if a will is invalid, a district court cannot evaluate the will’s validity until a
petition is filed, beginning the probate process. We further observe that nothing in the
district court’s order or our opinion prevents Brandsrud from contesting the will’s validity
at a later-held hearing.
5
is the requirement that a party has a sufficient stake in a justiciable controversy to seek
relief from a court.” State by Humphrey v. Philip Morris Inc., 551 N.W.2d 490, 493 (Minn.
1996). Parties acquire standing when they suffer an injury- in-fact or when the legislature
confers standing by statute. Id.
Minnesota Statutes section 524.3-401 confers standing to petition for formal probate
and appointment of personal representative on persons nominated as personal
representative in the decedent’s will, those who have priority under intestacy laws, or any
interested person. Minn. Stat. § 524.3-401 (2020). Because the will designated
Hespenheide as the successor personal representative, she has standing under all three
categories.
First, the decedent nominated Hespenheide as the successor personal representative
if Hedlund was unable or unwilling to serve. Hedlund renounced his nomination and
nominated Hespenheide, satisfying the will’s terms. Second, Hespenheide has priority
under intestacy laws. Individuals who are not disqualified to serve as personal
representative have foremost priority for appointment if they have priority under a will.
Minn. Stat. § 524.3- 203 (2020) (listing six next priorities). Again, Hespenheide has
priority under the will since it named her the successor personal representative. Finally,
Hespenheide is an interested person because she is a “person having priority for
appointment as personal representative.” Minn. Stat. § 524.1- 201(33) (2020). For the
same reason as the previous two categories, Hespenheide has standing as an interested
person since the decedent’s will designates her as the successor personal representative.
6
We conclude that Hespenheide has standing to petition for formal probate as the designated
successor personal representative under Minnesota Statutes section 524.3-401.
Affirmed; motions denied.