The Harmless Error Rule: A Case Study from The Dave Burns Law Office

The Dave Burns Law Office recently handled a case involving the question of whether a valid will was created under Minnesota’s new “harmless error rule.” The court held that the document in question did not constitute a last will and testament under the harmless error rule. This case serves as a pivotal example of how courts analyze the validity of a will when formal statutory requirements are not met.

What is the Harmless Error Rule?

Minnesota’s harmless error rule, found under Minnesota Statute § 524.2-503, allows a last will and testament to be deemed valid even if it doesn’t strictly comply with all legal formalities. It is designed to address common errors in the execution of a will, including lack of proper attestation or minor modifications. The rule applies to:

• Complete revocation of a will
• Partial revocation of a will
• Modifications to a will
• Additions to a will
• Partial or complete revival of a previously revoked will

To apply the rule, the proponent of the will must prove by clear and convincing evidence that the decedent intended the document to constitute their will. This standard requires evidence that makes it highly probable the decedent intended the document to express their testamentary intent.

What Did the Court Hold in the Recent Case?

In the case recently handled by The Dave Burns Law Office, the petitioner filed for the formal probate of a will and appointment of a personal representative in connection with the decedent’s estate. Three days later, a competing petition was filed by the decedent’s daughter — the respondent in the case, who was represented by The Dave Burns Law Office at trial. The respondent’s petition asked for her to be appointed personal representative in an intestate estate – one without a will. The court ultimately ruled in favor of the respondent, finding that the document did not meet the requirements of the harmless error rule and could not be considered a valid will.

A Summary of the Case

The petitioner claimed a close relationship with the decedent, who had named her as the primary health care agent in a medical directive and later as the agent in a power of attorney form. A day before the decedent’s death, a notary notarized both the power of attorney form and a handwritten document titled "A Last Will and Testament." The petitioner argued this document was a valid will.

The court examined testimony from both parties, including the decedent’s family and the notary. The respondent’s witnesses, including the decedent’s grandson, described a warm relationship between the decedent and her family and disputed the petitioner’s claim of distrust. The court found the respondent’s evidence more credible and persuasive, ultimately holding that the petitioner did not establish by clear and convincing evidence the decedent intended the document to her her will.

The Court’s Key Findings

To reach its conclusion, the court carefully evaluated the evidence, testimony, and circumstances surrounding the document's creation. Below are the key findings that formed the basis of the court’s decision:

1. Credibility of Testimonies:
   The court found that the petitioner’s testimony lacked credibility, particularly in her account of the decedent’s intentions and the notary’s role in drafting the document. In contrast, the notary credibly testified that he repeatedly told the decedent he could not draft a will and only wrote down her wishes as a general document. He denied inscribing the title, "A Last Will and Testament," on the document.
2. Insufficient Evidence of Testamentary Intent:
   The court concluded that there was insufficient evidence to prove that the decedent intended the document to serve as her will. While the document contained language giving the petitioner control over the decedent’s belongings and funeral arrangements, it did not direct the disposition of specific assets or indicate the decedent’s intent to disinherit her family.
3. Document Deficiencies:
   The document did not meet statutory requirements for a will:
   • It lacked witness signatures.
   • It was not a self-proved will or an update to an existing will.
   • Its ambiguous language resembled that of a power of attorney rather than a testamentary document.
4. Lack of Attempt to Create a Will:
   Unlike cases where harmless error applies to cure minor defects, the court determined that the decedent did not attempt to create a will. The evidence showed the decedent’s primary intent was to grant the petitioner authority to manage her affairs while she was alive, not to establish a testamentary disposition of her property after death.

Contact an Experienced Minnesota Estate Litigation Attorney

Contesting a will is often complex. If you are facing a will dispute, it’s vital to have an experienced estate litigation attorney by your side. At Dave Burns Law Office, I provide reliable representation and committed counsel for a wide variety of estate litigation matters in Minnesota.

If you would like to discuss a contested estate matter, I welcome you to contact me at (612) 677-8351 or by emailing dave@daveburnslaw.com. I assist clients throughout the Twin Cities metro area and am available to meet with clients in both Minneapolis and St. Paul.