In re the Estate of Robert G Sorenson, 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This opinion is nonprecedential except as provided by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
A25-1554

In re the Estate of Robert G Sorenson, Deceased.

Filed June 15, 2026
Affirmed
Rasmusson, Judge

Nobles County District Court
File No. 53-PR-23-1003

William J. Wetering, Daniel R. Wetering, Hedeen, Hughes & Wetering, Worthington,
Minnesota (for appellant Marilyn Sorenson)

Paul M. Malone, Malone & Mailander, Slayton, Minnesota (for respondent Scott
Sorenson)

Considered and decided by Cochran, Presiding Judge; Rasmusson, Judge; and
Cleary, Judge.∗
NONPRECEDENTIAL OPINION
RASMUSSON, Judge
In this probate matter, the decedent’s surviving spouse challenges the district court’s
dismissal of her petition for elective share, arguing that the district court abused its
discretion by not allowing her to informally withdraw or amend imputed admissions that
are relevant to the ownership of assets in a joint bank account that she alleged to be part of
the decedent’s estate. The surviving spouse additionally appears to argue that she is

∗ Retired judge of the Minnesota Court of Appeals, serving by appointment pursuant to
Minn. Const. art. VI, § 10.
2
entitled to the assets in this account as part of the augmented estate. Because the
admissions are dispositive of account ownership and the district court acted within its
discretion by deeming them admitted, we affirm.
FACTS
Appellant Marilyn Sorenson married Robert G. Sorenson in 1998. Robert had one
child, respondent Scott Sorenson, from a previous relationship. Robert owned a joint bank
account with Scott and Scott’s wife, Stefanie. The primary assets in this account were
Robert’s monthly veterans benefits, which are the only assets at issue in this appeal.
Robert died in January 2023 at the age of 92. Marilyn, unaware of the existence of
a will, filed a petition for formal adjudication of intestacy, determination of heirs, and
appointment of personal representative. She additionally filed a petition for elective share
of the decedent’s augmented estate. Scott subsequently filed an objection to Marilyn’s
intestacy petition, contending that Robert had a will in which Scott was named as personal
representative.
On December 28, 2023, Scott served several requests for admissions (RFAs) on
Marilyn’s counsel related to the joint bank account at issue in this case. Pertinent to the
issues on appeal, the RFAs sought the following admissions:
• “That the account was established on August 16, 2020.”

• “That when established Robert Sorenson owned one-third (1/3) of the
account.”

• “That when established Scott Sorenson was the owner of one-third (1/3) of
the account.”

3
• “That when established Stefanie Sorenson was the owner of one-third (1/3)
of the account.”

• “That after the death of Robert Sorenson, Scott Sorenson owned one-half
(1/2) of the account and Stefanie Sorenson owned one-half (1/2) of the
account.”

Marilyn failed to answer or object to the RFAs within 30 days as required by Minn.
R. Civ. P. 36.01. On February 1, 2024, Scott’s counsel contacted Marilyn’s counsel about
the lack of response to the RFAs. On March 6, Scott’s counsel sent a follow-up message
requesting a response. Six days later, Scott filed a motion to compel discovery. A hearing
on this motion was continued, and Marilyn subsequently submitted an answer through
counsel on April 12, denying the pertinent RFAs.
The district court scheduled a hearing on Marilyn’s petition for elective share of the
augmented estate. Prior to the hearing, Scott filed a memorandum requesting that the
district court deem the relevant RFAs admitted based on Marilyn’s failure to timely
respond. Following a hearing, the district court issued an order in which it recognized that
the RFAs were admitted. Based on the admitted facts, the district court determined that
this joint account falls outside of the augmented estate and accordingly dismissed the
petition. The district court also denied Marilyn’s subsequent motion for amended
findings.
1
Marilyn appeals.

1 The district court’s order framed this motion as a motion to reconsider. Because
Marilyn’s arguments primarily relate to the district court’s prior order, this discrepancy is
not material to our analysis.
4
DECISION
Marilyn argues that the district court abused its discretion by not allowing her to
informally amend or withdraw her admissions and appears to relatedly argue that deposits
into the joint account within the two years preceding Robert’s death are part of the
augmented estate.
Appellate courts review a district court’s decision to deem RFAs admitted for an
abuse of discretion. See Dahle v. Aetna Cas. & Sur. Ins. Co., 352 N.W.2d 397, 401-02
(Minn. 1984) (concluding that it was within the district court’s discretion to allow untimely
responses to RFAs); see also Frontier Ins. Co. v. Frontline Processing Corp., 788 N.W.2d
917, 922 (Minn. App. 2010) (“The district court’s discovery- related orders will not be
disturbed absent an abuse of discretion.”), rev. denied (Minn. Dec. 14, 2010).
A surviving spouse is authorized by statute to exercise “the right of election,”
meaning that a surviving spouse may “elect to take a share of the decedent spouse’s
‘augmented estate,’ rather than what would be received under the decedent spouse’s will.”
In re Guardianship & Conservatorship of Durand, 859 N.W.2d 780, 785 (Minn. 2015)
(quoting Minn. Stat. § 524.2-202 (2014)); accord Minn. Stat. § 524.2-202 (2024). The
augmented estate generally consists of
the sum of the values of all property, whether real or personal,
movable or immovable, tangible or intangible, wherever
situated, that constitute the decedent’s net probate estate, the
decedent’s nonprobate transfers to others, the decedent’s
nonprobate transfers to the surviving spouse, and the surviving
spouse’s property and nonprobate transfers to others.

5
Minn. Stat. § 524.2-203 (2024). Having been married to Robert for at least 15 years,
Marilyn is entitled to take 50% of the augmented estate. Minn. Stat. § 524.2-202(a); see
also Minn. Stat. § 524.2-202(b) (describing supplemental elective-share amount when sum
of assets is less than $75,000).
Although the underlying case is a probate dispute, this appeal centers on the district
court’s discovery decision regarding the RFAs. “Unless inconsistent with the provisions
of this chapter or chapter 525, pleadings, practice, procedure and forms in all probate
proceedings shall be governed insofar as practicable by Rules of Civil Procedur e . . . .”
Minn. Stat. § 524.1-304(a) (2024). Minnesota Rule of Civil Procedure 36.01 allows a party
to serve an RFA within the permissible scope of discovery relating “to statements, opinions
of fact, or the application of law to fact.” Under this rule, “[t]he matter is admitted unless
within 30 days after service of the request . . . the party to whom the request is directed
serves upon the party requesting the admission a written answer or objection addressed to
the matter, signed by the party or by the party ’s attorney.” Minn. R. Civ. P. 36.01. “Any
matter admitted pursuant to this rule is conclusively established unless the court on motion
permits withdrawal or amendment of the admission.” Minn. R. Civ. P. 36.02 (emphasis
added). Neither party argues that rule 36.01 does not apply.
As a threshold issue, we address whether Marilyn made a rule 36.02 motion to
withdraw. Because Marilyn did not serve a written answer or objection to the RFAs within
30 days of service, the matters are deemed admitted and “conclusively established.” Minn.
R. Civ. P. 36.02. Upon our careful review of the record, there is no indication that Marilyn
filed a motion to withdraw or amend the admissions as required by rule 36.02. Because
6
Marilyn’s motion did not include language indicating that she was raising a motion under
Minn. R. Civ. P. 36.02, we do not interpret it as such. Without a rule 36.02 motion, the
district court was left without a basis to permit withdrawal or amendment of these
admissions. Accordingly, we do not discern a basis to conclude that the district court
abused its discretion by deeming these RFAs admitted.
The admissions to the RFAs are dispositive of the elective-share petition. Notably,
one of these RFAs stated that, “after the death of Robert Sorenson, Scott Sorenson owned
one-half (1/2) of the account and Stefanie Sorenson owned one- half (1/2) of the account.”
Marilyn’s imputed admission that Scott and Stefanie own the entirety of this account
conclusively establishes that this account is not part of Robert’s augmented estate, meaning
that Marilyn would not be able to claim this account as part of her elective share. See
Minn. Stat. §§ 524.2-202, -203.
Affirmed.