In re the Estate of Joseph Andre Reis, 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This opinion is nonprecedential except as provided by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
A23-0413

In re the Estate of Joseph Andre Reis, Deceased.

Filed March 4, 2024
Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded
Hooten, Judge *

Wright County District Court
File No. 86-PR-21-1963

Mitzi Mellott, Rhonda J. Magnussen LLC, Elk River, Minnesota (for appellant Jennifer
Eid)

James W. Hess, Hess & Jendro Law Office, P .A. Elk River, Minnesota (for respondent
Jessica Reis)

Considered and decided by Connolly, Presiding Judge; Reyes, Judge; and Hooten,
Judge.
NONPRECEDENTIAL OPINION
HOOTEN, Judge
In this probate dispute, appellant argues that the record does not support the district
court’s determinations that (1) appellant d oes not qualify as an omitted spouse from the
decedent’s premarital will under Minn. Stat. § 524.2-301 (2022), and (2) appellant is not
entitled to a pickup truck under Minn. Stat. § 524.2-403 (2022). We affirm in part, reverse
in part, and remand.

* Retired judge of the Minnesota Court of Appeals, serving by appointment pursuant to
Minn. Const. art. VI, § 10.
2
FACTS
This appeal concerns the estate of Joseph Andre Reis (the decedent). In early 2020,
doctors told the decedent, who had been diagnosed with cancer over a decade beforehand,
that he may only have a few months left to live. The decedent asked his sister, re spondent
Jessica Reis, 1 to help him find an attorney to update his will because he wanted to name
Reis as personal representative and make sure their mother was taken care of financially.
Reis referred him to Douglas Murch. Murch thereafter met with the decedent on several
occasions throughout the latter half of 2020, and the decedent executed a will on November
6, 2020.
On December 3, 2020, the decedent married appellant Jennifer Eid. The decedent
and Eid met in 2009 and had been in a long- term relat ionship, but the decedent’s will did
not include a provision for Eid . The d ecedent never revised the will after his marriage to
Eid. However, in October 2020, the decedent named Eid as the beneficiary of his
retirement account, which was worth approximately $90,000. The decedent also added Eid
to the title of a Volkswagen Jetta automobile on March 24, 2021.
The decedent passed away on March 28, 2021. Eid subsequently filed a petition in
Wright County for probate of the decedent’s will and to have Reis formally appointed as
personal representative. Reis filed an objection asserting that North Dakota was the proper
venue, but the district court determined that Minnesota was the proper venue and appointed
Reis as personal representative. In September 202 1, Eid filed a petition requesting, as

1 All references in this opinion to “Reis” are to Jessica Reis; we refer to Joseph Reis as “the
decedent.”
3
relevant here, that the district court ( 1) determine that Eid is an omitted spouse from a
premarital will and therefore entitled to a share of the decedent’s estate under Minn. Stat.
§ 524.2-301, and (2) order Reis to turn over possession of a Ford F350 pickup truck owned
by decedent to Eid as exempt property pursuant to Minn. Stat. § 524.2- 403(a)(2).
At an evidentiary hearing, the district court heard testimony on the decedent’s intent
in creating his will. Murch testified that he and the decedent discussed Eid at every meeting
prior to the execution of the will. Murch asked the decedent about his intentions as to Eid,
and the decedent indicated “that he wanted to include her by giving her his 401k.” Murch
testified that the decedent “was very clear he wanted to leave everything else to [Reis] but
was going to set aside that 401k for [Eid].”
Murch further testified that he and the decedent discussed the possibility that the
decedent and Eid would marry and ho w that could impact estate planning. Murch asked
the decedent if he wanted to make any changes to the plan, which was to leave everything
but the retirement account to Reis, and the decedent indicated that he did not. Murch
explained that “getting marrie d would change things as far as a spouse goes and that
spouses have certain rights and . . . he could take care of that with a prenup.” Staff from
Murch’s law office sent the decedent an intake form for a prenuptial agreement, but the
decedent did not return the form or ultimately execute a prenuptial agreement. On the day
the decedent signed the will, Murch walked the decedent through the provisions and again
asked if he wanted to include Eid or leave anything to anyone other than Reis, and the
decedent indicated he did not.
4
The district court also heard testimony about the pickup truck. Eid testified that she
requested the pickup truck from Reis after Eid’s attorneys informed her that a surviving
spouse was entitled to a vehicle from the estate. Reis believed that Eid “got her vehicle”
because she received the Jetta the day after the decedent died. Reis ultimately sold the
pickup truck and camper for $120,000 total. The decedent had intended for Reis to sell the
pickup truck and use the proceeds to pay for new siding on their mother’s house, but their
mother passed away five weeks after the decedent.
Following the hearing, the district court denied Eid’s request to be deemed an
omitted spouse under Minn. Stat. § 524.2-301 and determined that Eid is not entitled to the
pickup truck as exempt property under Minn. Stat. § 524.2- 403(a)(2) because she received
the Jetta.
2 Eid appeals.
DECISION
I. The district court did not err in denying Eid’s request to be treated as an
omitted spouse under Minn. Stat. § 524.2-301.

Eid first argues that the district court erred in denying her request to be treated as an
omitted spouse from a premarital will under Minn. Stat. § 524.2-301. As relevant here, the
statute provides:
If a testator married after making a will and the spous e
survives the testator, the surviving spouse shall receive a share
of the estate of the testator equal in value to that which the

2 The district court determined that Eid was entitled to $15,000 worth of personal property
as exempt property under Minn. Stat. § 524.2- 403(a)(1) and awarded her the cash
equivalent because the property she requested had been sold. Reis does not challenge that
determination, and the a ward under Minn. Stat. § 524.2- 403(a)(1) is therefore not at issue
on appeal.
5
surviving spouse would have received if the testator had died
intestate, unless:
. . . .
(4) the testator provided for the spouse by transfer outside
the will and the intent that the transfer be in lieu of a
testamentary provision is shown by the testator ’s written
statements or may be reasonably inferred from the amount of
the transfer or other evidence.

Minn. Stat. § 524.2-301(a)(4). Eid and the decedent married after the decedent executed
his will, and Eid survived the decedent. Eid is therefore entitled to be treated as an omitted
spouse under the statute unless the decedent provided for her by transfer outside of the will
and intended for that transfer to “be in lieu of a testamentary provision” as demonstrated
by extrinsic evidence. Id.
The district court explicitly found that the decedent provided for Eid by transfer
outside of the will. This finding is supported by evidence in the record—specifically that
the decedent made Eid the beneficiary of his retirement account worth approximately
$90,000. See In re Est. of Aspenson, 470 N.W.2d 692, 695 (Minn. App. 1991) (determining
that naming a spouse the beneficiary of the decedent’s stock and life-insurance policy were
transfers outside of a will for purposes of the omitted -spouse statute). Accordingly, the
key question is whether the decedent intended “the transfer be in lieu of a testamentary
provision.” Minn. Stat. § 524.2-301(a)(4).
Intent is a question of fact , and a district court’s finding of fact regrading intent is
reviewed for clear error. See Aspenson, 470 N.W.2d at 695-96 (reviewing a district court’s
determination that a spouse intended transfers to be in lieu of a testamentary provision);
6
see also In re Est. of Hoigaard, 360 N.W.2d 360, 362 (Minn. App. 1984) (“The issue of
intentional omission [from a will] is a question of fact for the trier of fact to determine.”),
rev. denied (Minn. Mar. 21, 1985). Here, the district court made three key findings
regarding the decedent’s intent in creating his will.
First, the district court credited Murch’s testimony that the decedent consistently
stated throughout the will-creation process that he intended to make Eid the beneficiary of
his retirement account and leave everything else to Reis. Second, the district court found
that “from the evidence provided, it appears as though Decedent’s intent was that Decedent
chose not to include Eid in his will, with the understanding that she would receive some
additional property if the parties married.” In making this finding the district court
observed that “there is no evidence or testimony that following the ir marriage, Decedent
did not want [Eid] to receive the benefits that Murch told him she would receive if they
were married.” Third, the district court found:
Given the short term nature of the marriage, the lack of
contribution by Eid to the assets of the estate outside of the
homestead, the statements and clearly expressed intent of the
Decedent, along with the value of the retirement account
provided for Eid’s benefit as compared to the value of the
estate, the Court finds that the Decedent provided for Eid
outside of the will but also expected that she would receive
some additional property if they were to marry.

Eid argues that the district court erred “when it did not find any of the exceptions
under Minn. Stat. § 524.2- 301 applied but did not determine [Eid is] an omitted spouse.”
Eid’s argument hinges on the district court’s finding that the decedent “also expected that
[Eid] would receive some additional property if they were to marry.” She argues that
7
because the district court found that the decedent expected Eid to receive additional
property if they were to marry, the district court did not determine that the decedent
intended for the transfer to be in lieu of a testamentary provision. We disagree.
As noted above, the district court credited Murch’s testimony that the decedent
consistently stated that his intent was to provide for Eid by naming her the beneficiary of
his retirement account and leave everything else to Reis. Reis and Eid similarly testified
as to the decedent’s in tent to leave everything to Reis and have Reis use the estate to
provide for his mother. Murch and the decedent discussed the decedent’s relationship with
Eid and the decedent declined to provide for Eid in the will. This supports a determination
that the decedent intended for the transfer to be in lieu of a testamentary provision.
Notably, Murch and the decedent also discussed what would happen if decedent and
Eid were to marry, and Murch explained that a surviving spouse may be entitled to claim
an elective share of the augmented estate and exempt property including $15,000 in
household furnishings.3 When the district court’s order is read as a whole, it is clear that
this is the “some additional property” that the district court found the decedent expected
Eid would receive if they were to marry. Eid did not make a claim for an elective share of
the augmented estate under Minn. Stat. § 524.2-202(a), but she did receive exempt property
under Minn. Stat. § 524.2-403(a). Thus, Eid received some addi tional property due to her

3 Murch advised the decedent about what property a surviving spouse may claim under
North Dakota law because the decedent informed Murch that he was a resident of North
Dakota. Minnesota law similarly provides that a surviving spouse is entitled to exempt
property including up to $15,000 in personal property, Minn. Stat. § 524.2- 403(a)(1), and
may claim an elective share of the augmented estate, Minn. Stat. § 524.2-202(a) (2022).
8
marriage to the decedent, as the decedent intended. And contrary to Eid’s argument, it is
entirely consistent that the decedent could intend for the transfer outside of the will to be
in lieu of a testamentary provision and that Eid would receive some additional property in
the form of exempt property if they were to marry. On this record, the district court did
not err in determining that Eid is not entitled to be treated as an omitted spouse under Minn.
Stat. § 524.2-301(a).
II. The district court erred in determining t hat Eid is not entitled to the pickup
truck under Minn. Stat. § 524.2-403.

Eid next argues that the district court erred in determining that she is not entitled to
the pickup truck pursuant to Minn. Stat. § 524.2- 403. That statute provides, i n relevant
part:
(a) If there is a surviving spouse, then, in addition to the
homestead and family allowance, the surviving spouse is
entitled from the estate to:
(1) property not exceeding $15,000 in value in excess of
any security interests therein, in household furniture,
furnishings, appliances, and personal effects, subject to an
award of sentimental value property under section 525.152
[2022]; and
(2) one automobile, if any, without regard to value.

Minn. Stat. § 524.2-403(a). The district court determined that Eid was entitled to $15,000
in cash from the estate in lieu of the personal property she selected—a fish house —because
Reis had sold that property. But the district court determined that Eid was not entitled to
the pickup truck as the “one automobile” under Minn. Stat. § 524.2-403(a)(2) based on the
9
finding “that Decedent intended to provide a vehicle to Eid and did so with his transfer of
the Jetta.”
Eid argues that the district court erred in determining tha t the transfer of the Jetta
satisfies the statutory provision allowing her one automobile. She argues that because she
was added to the title of the Jetta, ownership transferred to her automatically upon the
decedent’s death and it did not become part of the dece dent’s estate. She argues that the
plain language of the statute entitles her to an automobile “from the estate” and therefore
the transfer of the Jetta does not satisfy the statutory allowance. She also argues that the
district court erred in relying on the decedent’s intent to provide her with the Jetta because
the intent of the decedent is not relevant under the exempt -property statute. These
arguments present questions of statutory interpretation, regarding which an appellate court
reviews a district court’s decision de novo. In re Est. of Eckley , 780 N.W.2d 407, 410
(Minn. App. 2010).
The Minnesota Uniform Probate Code defines “Estate” as “all of the property of the
decedent, trust, or other person whose affairs are subject to this chapter as origi nally
constituted and as it exists from time to time during administration.” Minn. Stat. § 524.1-
201(17) (2022). The decedent’s property did not become subject to the Minnesota Uniform
Probate Code until his death, so it follows that the estate as originally constituted would be
the property disposed of pursuant to the Minnesota Uniform Probate Code. We agree with
Eid that because she became the sole owner of the Jetta upon the decedent’s death, the Jetta
did not become part of the estate.
10
Additionally, we note that caselaw uses the terms “select” or “selection” when
discussing how property that will go to the surviving spouse as exempt property is
identified. See Fischer v. Hintz, 176 N.W. 177, 178 (Minn. 1920) (discussing the property
a surviving spouse “is entitled to select as her statutory allowance”); In re Est. of LeBrun,
458 N.W.2d 139, 142 (Minn. App. 1990) (noting that a substantially similar predecessor
statute entitled the surviving spouse to “a statutory selection” of exempt property). The
statute also contains a provision prescribing how to proceed “[i]f encumbered chattels are
selected,” which further supports the proposition that the surviving spouse is entitled to
select property from the estate to qualify as exempt property. Minn. Stat. § 524.2-403(a)(c)
(emphasis added) . Eid did not select the Jetta from the estate—she was the owner because
she was on the title.
Finally, we agree that the district court erred by seemingly relying on the decedent’s
intent to provide Eid with the Jetta to conclude that the statutory provision was satisfied.
In addressing Eid’s assertion that she was entitled to the pickup truck, the district court
stated:
The Court considers that immediately prior to his death,
Decedent transferred a vehicle t o Eid by adding her as a joint
owner days before his death. Eid argues that immediately upon
Decedent’s death, the Jetta became her sole property, as she
was the surviving joint owner by operation of law. Therefore,
Eid contends, the Jetta was not part of Decedent’s estate, and
she is entitled to the Ford truck, another vehicle remaining in
the estate. However, the Court finds that Decedent intended to
provide a vehicle to Eid and did so with his transfer of the Jetta.

(Emphasis added.) But as Eid notes, the intent of the decedent is irrelevant for purposes
of the exempt -property allowance. The statute does not establish the duty of a spouse to
11
provide a surviving spouse with an automobile; it establishes the right of a surviving spouse
to select an automobile from the estate, regardless of value. And notably, the statute further
provides that “[t]he rights granted by this section are in addition to any benefit or share
passing to the surviving spouse . . . by the decedent’s will.” Minn. Stat. § 524.2-403(e).
Thus, even if a decedent’s will provided that a surviving spouse would receive an
automobile, the spouse would still be entitled to select an automobile under the exempt -
property statute.
On this record, we conclude that the district court erred in determining that Eid is
not entitled to the pickup truck. The exempt -property statute allows a surviving spouse to
select one automobile from the estate of the decedent, and Eid did not select the Jetta from
the estate—ownership passed directly to her upon the decedent’s death. Moreover, the fact
that the decedent intended to provide her with the Jetta does not impact her entitlement to
select one vehicle from the estate pursuant to the exempt-property statute. Accordingly,
we reverse in part and remand to the district court for further proceedings on Eid’s claim
to the pickup truck.
Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded.