In re the SUPERVISED Estate of Lori Jean Bogren

STATE OF MINNESOTA
IN COURT OF APPEALS
A24-1388

In re the SUPERVISED Estate of Lori Jean Bogren, Deceased.

Filed April 28, 2025
Reversed and remanded
Worke, Judge

Hennepin County District Court
File No. 27-PA-PR-22-1596

Bradley A. Kletscher, Tyler W. Eubank, Barna, Guzy & Steffen, Ltd., Minneapolis,
Minnesota (for appellant Thomas F. Bogren, Jr.)

Terri A. Melcher, Fridley, Minnesota (for respondent Thomas F. Bogren, Sr.)

Considered and decided by Connolly, Presiding Judge; Worke, Judge; and

Wheelock, Judge.

SYLLABUS

1. Under Minnesota Statutes section 524.2-1107(c) (2024), a disclaimer

“describe[s] the interest . . . disclaimed” when it conveys sufficient information to impart

an idea or impression of the interest’s qualities, peculiarities, or distinctive traits.

2. Because of the flexibility of what constitutes an adequate description of an

interest being disclaimed under section 524.2-1107(c), a disclaimer is not automatically

defective if it does not state the value of the interest disclaimed.
 OPINION

WORKE, Judge

In this probate dispute, appellant contests a district court’s decision to void a

disclaimer that did not state the value of the interest disclaimed. Because we conclude that

Minn. Stat. § 524.2-1107(c) does not require a disclaimer to state the value of the interest

disclaimed, we reverse and remand for proceedings consistent with this opinion.

FACTS

Appellant Thomas F. Bogren, Jr. (son), and his sister, decedent Lori Jean Bogren

(daughter), are the children of respondent Thomas Bogren, Sr. (father). In April 2022,

daughter died intestate with no surviving spouse or children, and with father as her only

surviving parent and son as her only surviving sibling. From daughter’s estate, father

inherited daughter’s interest in a promissory note. The value of the interest was $293,899.

In October 2022, son visited father’s home and asked him to sign a disclaimer

regarding his interest in the promissory note, and father did so. The document read as

follows:

I, [father] (“Disclaimant”), irrevocably and without
qualification renounce, release, decline, disclaim and refuse to
accept any and all rights or interests in and to the following
specifically described property or property rights (the
“Disclaimed Property”) (For real estate use legal description
and attach Schedule, if necessary): All right, title and interest
in the Promissory Note originally payable from SNDB
Investments, LLC. to Mabel Makowsky and assigned to
[daughter] pursuant to the private agreement among the
successors of the Mabel Makowsky Estate.

2
 In February 2023, father moved to revoke the disclaimer, asserting that he “did not

understand the nature of the document [he] was signing” or “the value of what [he] was

Disclaiming,” and therefore, the disclaimer should “be null and void.” A referee agreed

and recommended an order to invalidate the disclaimer. The district court adopted the

referee’s recommendation and filed an order accordingly.

This appeal followed.

ISSUE

Does Minnesota Statutes section 524.2-1107(c) require a disclaimer to state the

value of the interest disclaimed?

ANALYSIS

Son argues that the district court erred by determining that the disclaimer was

invalid because Minn. Stat. § 524.2-1107(c) does not require a disclaimer to state the value

of the interest disclaimed. Father argues that, because a disclaimer requires a description

of the interest being disclaimed, son was obligated to include the value of the interest in

the document.

Before we address the parties’ arguments, we first outline the legal requirements for

disclaimers in Minnesota. The Minnesota Uniform Disclaimer of Property Interests Act

(the Act) governs disclaimers under state probate law. See Minn. Stat. §§ 524.2-1101 to -

1116 (2024). Under the Act, a “disclaimer” is a “refusal to accept an interest in or power

over property.” Minn. Stat. § 524.2-1102(5). The Act requires disclaimers to have certain

essential elements: “[A] disclaimer must be in writing, declare the writing as a disclaimer,

describe the interest or power disclaimed, and be signed by the person or fiduciary making

3
the disclaimer.” Minn. Stat. § 524.2-1107(c) (emphasis added). Disclaimers must be

“acknowledged in the manner provided for deeds of real estate to be recorded in this state”

and comply with the delivery and filing requirements under Minn. Stat. § 524.2-1114. Id.

When the legislature passed the Act, it substantially adopted the Uniform

Disclaimer of Property Interests Act (1999). See Unif. Disclaimer of Prop. Interests Acts

(Unif. L. Comm’n 2002). The authors of the uniform act designed it “to allow every sort

of disclaimer, including those that are useful for tax planning purposes,” noting that

“[b]ecause a disclaimer is a refusal to accept, the only bar to a disclaimer should be

acceptance of the offer.” Id., prefatory note. Among the uniform-act provisions that the

legislature adopted was the definition of a “disclaimer,” see id. § 2(3), and the requirement

that disclaimers “describe the interest or power disclaimed,” see id. § 5(c).

Here, because the parties dispute whether a disclaimer must state the precise value

of the interest being disclaimed, this case centers on the scope of the word “describe” under

Minn. Stat. § 524.2-1107(c). Because the statute does not define the word “describe,” this

dispute presents a question of statutory interpretation. And because Minnesota appellate

courts have not previously interpreted that term under the statute, the parties present an

issue of first impression.

“The interpretation of a statute is a question of law that [appellate courts] review de

novo.” Cocchiarella v. Driggs, 884 N.W.2d 621, 624 (Minn. 2016). “The object of all

interpretation and construction of laws is to ascertain and effectuate the intention of the

legislature. Every law shall be construed, if possible, to give effect to all its provisions.”

Minn. Stat. § 645.16 (2024). The first step in statutory interpretation is to determine

4
“whether the statute’s language is ambiguous.” State v. Riggs, 865 N.W.2d 679, 682

(Minn. 2015). “A statute is ambiguous when its language is subject to more than one

reasonable interpretation.” Id. “If a statute is unambiguous, we apply the statute’s plain

[and ordinary] meaning.” State v. Powers, 962 N.W.2d 853, 858 (Minn. 2021). “When

the words are not defined in the statute, we may look to dictionary definitions to determine

a term’s plain and ordinary meaning.” Id. (quotation omitted). If a statute is ambiguous,

we may proceed to consider “the occasion and necessity for the law,” “the consequences

of a particular interpretation,” and legislative history, among other factors. Minn. Stat.

§ 645.16 (2024).

Here, neither the Act’s definition statute nor the general definition statute in the

Minnesota Uniform Probate Code define the word “describe.” See Minn. Stat.

§§ 524.1-201 (2024), .2-1102. Therefore, we employ dictionary definitions to determine

its plain and ordinary meaning. See Powers, 962 N.W.2d at 858. Dictionary definitions

of “describe” include “[t]o convey an idea or impression of; characterize,” or “[t]o trace

the form or outline of.” The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language 490

(5th ed. 2018). To “convey” means “[t]o communicate or make known; impart.” Id. at

402. To “characterize” means “[t]o describe the qualities or peculiarities” of something or

“[t]o be a distinctive trait or mark.” Id. at 312. And “trace” means “[e]vidence or an

indication of the . . . existence of something.” Id. at 1839.

Taking these definitions into account, we conclude that the word “describe,” as used

in Minn. Stat. § 524.2-1107(c), is unambiguous: it provides a flexible framework for a

disclaimer to convey sufficient information to impart an idea or impression of an interest’s

5
qualities, peculiarities, or distinctive traits. Given the multitude of things that a description

might include, we decline to adopt a position that—as a matter of law—a description must

include specific information about the value of the interest at issue. 1

Our definition is consistent with decisions in other states that have enacted the same

language from the uniform act. See Minn. Stat. § 645.22 (2024) (“Laws uniform with those

of other states shall be interpreted and construed to effect their general purpose to make

uniform the laws of those states which enact them.”). In Indiana, for example, an appellate

court dealt with a case in which a party disclaimed his interest in a life insurance policy.

In re Est. of Highfill, 839 N.E.2d 218, 222-23 (Ind. Ct. App. 2005). The disclaimer

described the interest as: “INWOOD OFFICE FURNITURE GROUP UNIVERSAL LIFE

INSURANCE CERTIFICATE # 0088655.” Id. at 223. On appeal, the party argued that

the disclaimer was invalid because it did “not include the value of the policy,” and

therefore, did not adequately “describe the interest . . . disclaimed” under “[Ind. Code]

§ 32-17.5-3-3(b).” Id. at 222-23. The court disagreed, concluding that “the disclaimer

adequately identified what [the party] was disclaiming” because “[t]he description . . . was

sufficient for [the party], if he had chosen to do so, to determine the amount of the policy.”

Id.; see also Lee v. Lee, 263 So.3d 826, 827-28 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2019) (determining that

1
In addition to his argument about value, son also argues that because a disclaimer must
only describe an “interest,” it does not need to describe “property.” See Minn. Stat.
§ 524.2-1107(c). We are unpersuaded. A “disclaimer” is a “refusal to accept an interest
in . . . property.” Minn. Stat. § 524.2-1102(5) (emphasis added). Because an important
identifying feature of “an interest in . . . property” is the property to which the interest
relates, a disclaimer must include sufficient information to adequately identify the property
in question.

6
a disclaimer in which a party gave up “right, title, and interest” to “All Estate assets”

complied with state statute, including the requirement that the disclaimer “describe the

interest . . . disclaimed” under Fla. Stat. § 739.104(3) (2014)).

Here, the disclaimer provided the following information about father’s interest: “All

right, title and interest in the Promissory Note originally payable from SNDB Investments,

LLC. to Mabel Makowsky and assigned to [daughter] pursuant to the private agreement

among the successors of the Mabel Makowsky Estate.” When we take the plain meaning

of “describe” into account, we conclude that the disclaimer’s lack of information about

value did not, by itself, preclude the district court from determining that the disclaimer was

valid under Minn. Stat. § 524.2-1107(c). We reach this result because a disclaimer that

does not state the value of an interest may still be legally binding if it conveys enough

information to impart an idea or impression of the interest’s qualities, peculiarities, or

distinctive traits.

DECISION

Because a disclaimer is not automatically defective when it does not state the value

of the interest disclaimed, we reverse and remand for proceedings consistent with this

opinion. 2

Reversed and remanded.

2
We acknowledge that the parties also argued in district court about whether son
fraudulently induced father into signing the disclaimer and whether the disclaimer is
unlawful because father was insolvent. On remand, the district court may exercise its
discretion to fully address those arguments. Whether to reopen the record on remand is at
the district court’s discretion.

7