Contesting a Will for Undue Influence in Minnesota

What counts as undue influence over a will in Minnesota?

Undue influence is pressure strong enough that the will states another person’s wishes instead of your parent’s, and it must operate when the will is made. In In re Estate of Peterson, 168 N.W.2d 502 (Minn. 1969), the Minnesota Supreme Court quoted its earlier definition: “It must be equivalent to moral coercion or constraint overpowering the will of the testator. It must operate at the very time the will is made and dominate and control its making.”

The court has also described how far the influence must go. In In re Estate of Congdon, 309 N.W.2d 261 (Minn. 1981), it stated that the evidence “must go beyond suspicion and conjecture and show, not only that the influence was in fact exerted, but that it was so dominant and controlling of the testator’s mind that, in making the will, he ceased to act of his own free volition and became a mere puppet of the wielder of that influence.”

The Court of Appeals put the same test in plainer terms in In re Estate of Torgersen, 711 N.W.2d 545 (Minn. Ct. App. 2006). A contestant “must show that another person exercised influence at the time the testator executed the will to the degree that the will reflects the other person’s intent instead of the testator’s intent.” For you, the question is narrow: on the day of signing, did the will say what your parent wanted, or what the caregiver or sibling wanted?

How do you contest a will in a Minnesota probate court?

You contest a Minnesota will by objecting to it in a formal testacy proceeding and stating your objections in your pleadings. Under Minn. Stat. § 524.3-401, “A formal testacy proceeding is one conducted with notice to interested persons before a court to establish a will or determine intestacy.” It can begin with a petition to probate a will, or with “a petition to set aside an informal probate of a will or to prevent informal probate of a will which is the subject of a pending application.” Minn. Stat. § 524.3-404 then provides: “Any party to a formal proceeding who opposes the probate of a will for any reason shall state in pleadings the objections to probate of the will.”

A will admitted through informal probate, the application process handled by the court’s registrar, stays in force until a judge replaces it. Under Minn. Stat. § 524.3-302, “Informal probate is conclusive as to all persons until superseded by an order in a formal testacy proceeding.”

The burden of proof is split. Under Minn. Stat. § 524.3-407, “Proponents of a will have the burden of establishing prima facie proof of due execution in all cases,” and “Contestants of a will have the burden of establishing lack of testamentary intent or capacity, undue influence, fraud, duress, mistake or revocation.” The person defending the will proves it was properly signed, and you prove the undue influence.

Time is limited. For an informally probated will, Minn. Stat. § 524.3-108 provides that “a proceeding to contest an informally probated will and to secure appointment of the person with legal priority for appointment in the event the contest is successful, may be commenced within the later of 12 months from the informal probate or three years from the decedent’s death.” I suggest checking the current text before relying on that period, because the legislature can change it. A formal order already entered after a hearing follows different rules, covered in the deadlines to contest a will or trust in Minnesota.

If no one has opened probate yet, you can ask to be told when someone does. Under Minn. Stat. § 524.3-204, “Any person desiring notice of any order or filing pertaining to a decedent’s estate in which the person has a financial or property interest, may file a demand for notice with the court at any time after the death of the decedent.” Once a demand is filed, “no personal representative or other person shall apply to the court for an order or filing to which the demand relates unless demandant or the demandant’s attorney is given notice thereof at least 14 days before the date of such order or filing, except that this requirement shall not apply to any order entered or petition filed in any formal proceeding.” A formal proceeding carries its own notice. For the steps of an ordinary estate, see how Minnesota probate works.

What evidence do Minnesota courts weigh in an undue influence case?

Minnesota courts weigh six circumstantial factors, and you must prove undue influence by clear and convincing evidence. Peterson explains why the proof is indirect: “By its very nature, undue influence can usually be shown only by circumstantial evidence.” The court listed factors to consider, including whether the evidence shows:

1. an opportunity to exercise undue influence;
2. a confidential relationship between the person making the will and the person accused of the influence;
3. active participation in preparing the will by the person accused;
4. disinheritance of people the decedent would have been expected to remember in the will;
5. a singularity of the provisions of the will; and
6. the exercise of influence or persuasion to induce the decedent to make the will.

No single factor decides the case. Peterson said that “the presence of any one of these facts standing alone might not have been enough to establish undue influence,” but that “taken together they clearly permit an inference of undue influence.” There, the drafter’s series of wills had cut out the testator’s relatives and friends one step at a time, until her estate went to his children, whom she had met only briefly years before.

The standard of proof is high. Matter of Estate of Rechtzigel, 385 N.W.2d 827 (Minn. Ct. App. 1986) was decided under § 524.3-407. There the Court of Appeals stated: “It is well settled that the will contestant must establish undue influence by clear and convincing proof.” It added: “Clear and convincing proof will be shown where the truth of the facts asserted is highly probable.” Each fact you plan to rely on should be one a witness or document can prove, because the court decides on evidence rather than suspicion.

Why is a close relationship or an unequal will not enough?

A close relationship, a chance to influence, or a will that treats children unequally does not prove undue influence, even when all three are present. Rechtzigel stated that “the requisite clear and convincing proof of undue influence is not established merely by a showing of motive, opportunity, or disposition to use undue influence, or by showing the existence of a confidential relationship with the testator, or by revealing the inequality or unjustness of the will, or by a showing of a combination of any or all of these” factors.

Family closeness can even cut against the contest. Rechtzigel quoted an earlier rule that intimacy or affection between blood relatives “negatives rather than proves undue influence.” In In re Estate of Lange, 398 N.W.2d 569 (Minn. Ct. App. 1986), a daughter who was her mother’s co-conservator managed her affairs and came with her to the lawyer’s office, but waited in the waiting room. The court applied the rule that “opportunity alone will not sustain a finding of undue influence” and affirmed the order admitting the will.

Your evidence must also speak to the signing itself. In a nonprecedential 2024 decision, In re Estate of Kranz, No. A23-0231 (Minn. Ct. App. Jan. 16, 2024), a daughter challenged a will leaving her mother’s estate to the mother’s brother. The court affirmed summary judgment against her because her arguments amounted to “no more than mere speculation or surmise.” It noted that none of her concerns “squarely address decedent’s capacity or Irwin’s influence on her at the time she executed her will.” Nonprecedential means other courts are not required to follow the decision, but it shows the kind of record that loses before trial.

How does a caregiver’s or sibling’s role in the signing change the case?

The closer the caregiver or sibling came to controlling the will itself, the stronger your case. Peterson repeated a rule from an earlier decision: “when a beneficiary of a substantial portion of the estate sustains a fiduciary or confidential relation with the testator and acts as the scriviner [sic] in drawing the will or controls its drafting, such facts alone will make a prima facie case and will sustain a finding of undue influence.” A prima facie case is evidence that, without more, is enough to support a finding. Under § 524.3-407 the burden still stays with you: Torgersen cited a 1986 Court of Appeals decision holding that a contestant’s burden “of establishing undue influence was not met merely by relying on presumption of undue influence.” Peterson applied the rule to an attorney who drafted a will leaving everything to his own children.

Helping is different from controlling. In Rechtzigel, a daughter called her own attorney, told him her father wanted a new will, suggested the terms that became its main gift, and drove her father to the signing. The court said: “This participation itself, however, is not conclusive of undue influence.” Outside her presence, the father told the people at the signing that he was not threatened and was making the will voluntarily. The farm his son had bought at a low price also gave him a reason for the change.

A caregiver’s household is not proof by itself either. Torgersen involved a daughter and son-in-law who took the mother into their home. The court accepted that they had a confidential relationship with her and the opportunity to influence her, but upheld the will. The lawyer testified that he met the mother alone, and the court found “no evidence that these attitudes originated with the Groveses or were motivated by a plan to have Torgersen disinherit EmCele Masbaum.”

Testimony from paid caregivers can carry a case. In Norwest Bank Minnesota North, N.A. v. Beckler, 663 N.W.2d 571 (Minn. Ct. App. 2003), one of the caregivers testified that a daughter called her mother ten to fifteen times per day and that the mother was “usually shaky” after those calls. The Court of Appeals upheld a jury’s finding of undue influence. The document there was the mother’s exercise of a power of appointment under a trust, which the court judged by the will standard.

Expect the paperwork from the signing to be used against you. A self-proved will carries sworn statements, in the form set by Minn. Stat. § 524.2-504, that the testator was “of sound mind, and under no constraint or undue influence.” Under Minn. Stat. § 524.3-406, paragraph (b), “If the will is self-proved, compliance with signature requirements for execution is conclusively presumed and other requirements of execution are presumed subject to rebuttal without the testimony of any witness upon filing the will and the acknowledgment and affidavits annexed or attached thereto, unless there is proof of fraud or forgery affecting the acknowledgment or affidavit.” In Kranz, the brother’s summary judgment motion rested in part on the two witnesses’ affidavits that the mother “was of sound mind and not unduly influenced” when she signed.

How does dementia fit with an undue influence claim?

Lack of capacity is a separate ground from undue influence, and you can raise both in the same objection. Under Minn. Stat. § 524.2-501, “Any person 18 or more years of age who is of sound mind may make a will.” Section 524.3-407 lists “lack of testamentary intent or capacity” and “undue influence” as separate grounds the contestant must establish.

Under Torgersen, capacity exists if the testator knows the nature, situation, and extent of her property and the claims of others on her, and can hold those things in mind long enough to form a rational judgment about them. The court weighs four factors:

1. the reasonableness of the property disposition;
2. the testator’s conduct within a reasonable time before and after signing;
3. any prior court ruling on the testator’s mental capacity; and
4. expert testimony about the testator’s physical and mental condition.

A conservatorship does not settle the question. In Congdon, the Minnesota Supreme Court explained that “because testamentary capacity is a less stringent standard than the capacity to contract, it is not inconsistent for the subject of a conservatorship to have sufficient capacity to execute a will.” A diagnosis does not settle it either. In Lange, a physician testified that the mother had senile dementia, but nursing staff who saw her daily described her as alert, and the lawyer interviewed her alone. The court said expert testimony “is not conclusive, but merely evidence to be weighed and considered by the trier of fact.” Medical, nursing, and pharmacy records from the weeks around the signing speak to both grounds, which is why I suggest requesting them early.

What happens to the estate if the court sets the will aside?

If the court refuses to probate the late will, the estate passes under an earlier valid will or, if none exists, under Minnesota’s rules for people who die without a will. You can put the earlier will before the court in the same case. Section 524.3-407 provides: “If a will is opposed by the petition for probate of a later will revoking the former, it shall be determined first whether the later will is entitled to probate, and if a will is opposed by a petition for a declaration of intestacy, it shall be determined first whether the will is entitled to probate.” Under Minn. Stat. § 524.3-409, “Any will found to be valid and unrevoked shall be formally probated.”

The two cases above show both paths. In Torgersen, the contestant objected to the late will and petitioned to probate a 1978 will that divided the estate equally among four daughters. In Kranz, the daughter petitioned for a formal ruling that her mother died without a valid will.

I suggest locating each earlier will and codicil, including copies kept by the lawyers who drafted them, because the earlier plan is both your fallback and your evidence of how far the late will departed from it. If the late will penalizes a challenge, read how no-contest clauses work in Minnesota before filing.

Can you also undo lifetime gifts, deeds, or account changes?

Gifts and deeds your parent signed during life are challenged in their own claim, separate from the objection to the will. A confidential relationship does not bar the gift, but it invites close review. In Bentson v. Ellenstein, 10 N.W.2d 282 (Minn. 1943), a beneficiary under the will sued to set aside deeds the decedent signed for the person who managed her affairs. The Minnesota Supreme Court stated: “If the donor was at the time of sound mind and clearly understood the transaction and exercised a free will in the act, being under no restraint or undue influence, such gift will be supported.” It added that “all such transactions are carefully scrutinized by a court of equity,” and it upheld the deeds on the trial court’s findings.

In Gellert v. Eginton, 770 N.W.2d 190 (Minn. Ct. App. 2009), a daughter obtained a gift deed putting her mother’s home in joint tenancy with herself, one week after a court restored the mother’s capacity at a hearing her brothers were not notified of. The brothers sued, the court found the mother lacked capacity to sign the deed, and the home went back to the estate. A party challenging a gift for lack of capacity “must establish the donor’s lack of capacity by clear and convincing evidence.”

Under Minn. Stat. § 524.3-720, “When after demand the personal representative refuses to prosecute or pursue a claim or asset of the estate,” an interested person who recovers it for the estate through a separate attorney has that attorney paid from the estate. The amount is what the court finds “just and reasonable and commensurate with the benefit to the estate.” The brothers in Gellert recovered their fees this way, after the court found they had pursued the claim in good faith for the benefit of the estate.

Two related rules shape the evidence. Under Minn. Stat. § 523.21, “The attorney-in-fact shall keep complete records of all transactions entered into by the attorney-in-fact on behalf of the principal.” The people entitled to examine and copy those records include “a person designated by the principal in the document creating the power of attorney as the recipient of accountings required by this section” and “the personal representative of the estate of the principal after the death of the principal.” A formal accounting is required only in the cases the section lists, but the records themselves must be kept. If your parent’s assets sat in a trust, Minn. Stat. § 501C.0406 provides: “A trust is void to the extent its creation was induced by fraud, duress, or undue influence.” That route is covered in challenging a trust amendment that cut you out.

What should you gather before you object to the will?

The evidence that wins these cases is evidence about the signing, so I suggest gathering it before you file, because Kranz shows a contest can end at summary judgment without it. If you have received notice of a hearing on a petition for formal probate, I suggest stating your objections in that proceeding without waiting to finish this list, because under Minn. Stat. § 524.3-412 the formal testacy order, subject to appeal and vacation, “is final as to all persons with respect to all issues concerning the decedent’s estate that the court considered or might have considered incident to its rendition relevant to the question of whether the decedent left a valid will.” The list follows the Peterson factors:

1. The late will and each earlier will, codicil, and trust document, with the date each was signed.
2. The court file, which shows whether the will was informally probated, formally probated after a hearing, or not yet filed.
3. The drafting lawyer’s name, and who found the lawyer, set and attended the meetings, and paid the bill.
4. The names of the witnesses to the will and of the caregivers, aides, nurses, and friends who saw your parent around the signing.
5. Medical and nursing records from the months around the signing.
6. Bank, deed, and account records showing lifetime gifts, new joint owners, or changed beneficiaries.

Some of these records are open only to the people a statute lists. The power-of-attorney records under § 523.21 are open to the person the power of attorney names as “the recipient of accountings required by this section” and, after death, to the personal representative. If the person you suspect holds that office, a formal proceeding helps. Under § 524.3-401, a previously appointed personal representative who receives notice of a formal proceeding “shall refrain from exercising power to make any further distribution of the estate during the pendency of the formal proceeding,” unless the petition also requests confirmation of that appointment. Without a request to restrain the personal representative, or if the court denies it, the formal proceeding has “no effect on the powers and duties of a previously appointed personal representative other than those relating to distribution.” For the other tools against a personal representative, see remedies for executor misconduct.

Next Steps in a Minnesota Undue Influence Contest

The first questions are what the court file shows and what evidence exists about the day the will was signed. Under § 524.3-407, you carry the burden of establishing undue influence, and Peterson and Rechtzigel require clear and convincing proof that the influence overpowered your parent’s own wishes at that time. The Peterson factors tell you which facts matter: who had the opportunity, who had your parent’s confidence, who took part in preparing the will, and how far the will departed from the earlier plan. I suggest reading the current text of § 524.3-108 and checking the court file before relying on any period, because the time to file depends on whether and how the will was probated.

If you are an heir, a beneficiary under an earlier will, or the caregiver or sibling named in a contested will, email [email protected] with a brief description of the wills and the dates you know. I start with an intake and conflict check before you send confidential documents. I can then analyze the wills, the court file, and the evidence you have against the Peterson factors and tell you which facts help your position and which hurt it. More on how I handle these cases is on my trust and estate litigation page.