Question: The grandson of the testator, Mrs. Sullivan, offered three separate wills for probate. How did the court go about sorting out which document should be probated as the true will?"

ESTATES AND PROBATE 427 to execute a valid will. See Minn.Stat. $ 524.2-502 (stating a will "must" be executed with certain for- revive it. We nonetheless affirm because the district malities); Ludwig's Estate, 79 Minn. at 106, 81 N.W. court correctly admitted the 2006 will into probate. at 760 (same). The district court did not clearly err See Katz v. Katz, 408 N.W.2d 835, 839 (Minn.1987) by finding that the 2010 document was not validly ("[Wje will not reverse a correct decision simply executed. because it is based on incorrect reasons."). C. The district court held that the testator did not revoke VanHale finally alleges that Johnson breached a the 2006 will, but it nonetheless used the doctrine fiduciary duty by allegedly witnessing the signing of of dependent relative revocation to revive the 2006 the 2010 document and offering the 2006 will for will based on its finding that VanHale "arguably' probate, against the testator's intent. VanHale did intended to revoke it. not develop the fiduciary-duty argument by citing any relevant caselaw, and the district court did not "When reviewing mixed questions of law and fact, we address the argument in its order. We decline to correct erroneous applications of law, but accord the review the fiduciary-duty issue that the district court district court discretion in its ultimate conclusions and did not address. See Thiele v. Stich, 425 N.W.2d review such conclusions under an abuse of discretion 580, 582 (Minn. 1988) (stating that this court will not standard." Porch v. Gen. Motors Acceptance Corp., address matters not argued to or considered by the 642 N.W.2d 473, 477 (Minn.App.2002) (quotation district court) omitted), review denied (Minn. June 26, 2002). DECISION The district court relied on In re Anthony's Estate, 265 Because a "revocatory act on the will" must be per- Minn. 382, 390, 121 N.W.2d 772, 778-79 (1963) to formed on a will executed according to statutory apply the doctrine of dependent relative revocation. formalities, and the testator did not perform a revo- But in Anthony's Estate, the Supreme Court held that catory act on the properly executed will or execute a dependent relative revocation generally applies in sit- subsequent will, we affirm. uations where a testator revokes a valid will with the Affirmed. intent to replace it with a second will, but for some reason (such as lack of formality) the second will is CASE REVIEW QUESTION inoperative, and the court revives the first will to The grandson of the testator, Mrs. Sullivan, offered avoid sending the estate into intestacy. 265 Minn. at three separate wills for probate. How did the Court 390, 121 N.W.2d at 778-79. Here, the testator never go about sorting out which document should be revoked the 2006 will, and the district court therefore probated as the true will? erroneously applied dependent relative revocation to423 CHAPTER 11 interpretation of a statute is a question of law, which the Uniform Probate Code to require a revocatory act we review de novo, Lee v. Lee, 775 N. W.2d 631, 637 on an original will); In re Estate of Stanton, 472 N.W.2d (Minn. 2009) 741, 747 (N.D.1991) (holding that revocatory acts on a photocopy of the original will did not comport with A. The district court found that the writing on the 2008 statutory requirements); Gushwa v. Hunt, 145 N.M. photocopy did not revoke the 2006 will. VanHale 286, 197 P.3d 1, 6 (2008) (same); see generally Minn Stat. 5 645.22 (2014) (stating that when courts con- argues that the testator's intent to revoke the 2006 strue uniform laws they should do so to "make uni- will was clear, and that this court should honor that form the laws of those states which enact them"). intent even though the revocatory act was done on a Policy reasons also favor a revocatory act on a will photocopy executed according to statutory formalities for two As an initial matter, no one witnessed the testator reasons: to adhere to the testator's wishes as closely sign the 2008 photocopy, and the district court cor- as possible and to avoid substantial litigation based rectly held that it was not a valid will under Minn. Stat. on potentially fraudulent changes on photocopies. $ 524,2-502. See Theis v. Theis, 271 Minn. 199, 206, For example, in this case the testator allegedly made 135 N.W.2d 740, 745 (1965) (holding that subsequent three documents regarding the disposition of her revocatory will must be executed with formalities, estate. The testator validly executed the 2006 will including witnesses). and named Johnson the personal representative and The main issue for us to consider is whether the tes beneficiary of 50% of her estate. The 2008 photocopy tator's alleged revocatory act on the 2008 photocopy replaced Johnson with VanHale as a 50% beneficiary was valid under Minn. Stat. $ 524.2-507(a)(2). VanHale and personal representative of the estate, and it cites In re Nelson's Estate, 183 Minn. 295, 298, 236 included a statement revoking the 2006 will. The 2010 N.W. 459, 461 (1931), for the proposition that this document made VanHale the only beneficiary. court should look to the testator's intent in determin- All three documents contradict each other. There is no ing if a revocatory act is valid. VanHale's arguments other evidence in the record clarifying the testator's regarding intent are inapposite when considering intent regarding the 2006 will. Perhaps the testator whether the revocatory act must be performed on was simply making notes for a potential revised will on the original will or a photocopy. Moreover, VanHale the 2008 photocopy and 2010 document, but eventu- fails to note that the valid revocatory act in Nelson's ally decided against revoking or revising the 2006 will. Estate was done on the original will, not a photocopy. It is also possible that the testator was unduly influ- 183 Minn. at 298, 236 N.W. at 461. VanHale has not enced or not competent when she allegedly wrote on cited any caselaw supporting his argument that a valid the documents. Without witnesses or a revocatory act revocatory act can be performed on a photocopy of the will under section 524.2-507. on the original will, we can only speculate as to the testator's intent. But speculation by this court would A "revocatory act on the will" means an act on a will be inequitable to the testator and the clear wishes she executed according to statutory formalities. Minn. Stat. expressed in her validly executed 2006 will. $ 524.2-502 requires that "a will must be" executed according to three formalities. Minn. Stat. $ 524.2-502 A "revocatory act on the will" under Minn. Stat. (requiring a writing, the testator's signature, and two $ 524.2-507 must be performed on a will executed witnesses). Section 524.2-502 implies that a docu- according to statutory formalities, not a copy thereof ment not executed according to the statutory for- for the revocation to be effective. The district court malities is not considered a "will" for the purposes did not err by finding that the testator's alleged of Minnesota's Uniform Probate Code. Thus, when attempt to revoke the 2006 will was ineffective. someone performs "a revocatory act on the will," the B. revocatory act must be on a will executed under Minn. Stat. $ 524.2-502. VanHale next argues that the 2010 document is valid based on policy arguments. VanHale concedes that Our interpretation of Minn. Stat. 5 524.2-507 is consis the 2010 document did not conform to statutory for tent with other jurisdictions that have adopted a similar malities, but insists that this court should ignore the provision of the Uniform Probate Code and consid formalities here to follow the testator's intent. How ered the issue, See In re Estate of Tolin, 622 So.2d 988, 990 (Fla. 1993) (interpreting an earlier version of ever, Minnesota statute and the Supreme Court both require strict compliance with the formalities in order (continued+ by- Activity CASE ESTATES AND PROBATE 425 n re the Estate of Sullivan 368 N.W.2d 750 (2015) Appellant and respondent collectively offered three purported wills into probate. The district court admit- ted a will validly executed in 2006. The district court denied probate for two documents presented by appellant that did not comply with statutory formalities. revocation because of the testator's intent to revoke the 2006 will and admitted it into probate. The district court also held that the 2006 will was not ISSUES revoked by a revocatory act on a photocopy. We affirm. FACTS 1. Did the testator validly revoke the 2006 will under Minn. Stat. 5 524.2-507? The testator Esther Caroline Sullivan executed a will Il. Did Johnson have a fiduciary duty to the testator? on January 19, 2006 ("2006 will"), and filed it with ANALYSIS court administration. Two witnesses and a notary public signed the 2006 will, which listed respondent Tara Jean Johnson as the testator's personal rep- VanHale argues that the testator revoked the 2006 will through the changes made on the 2008 photo- resentative. The 2006 will devised 50% of testator's copy. VanHale also urges us to admit the 2010 doc- property to Johnson and only a contingent share to ument into probate based on the testator's intent, appellant Joseph Scott VanHale. Johnson is a former even though the document failed to comply with formalities. employee of the testator, and VanHale is the testa- tor's grandson. In relevant part, for a will to be valid it must be (1) in writing, (2) signed by the testator, and (3) signed by On October 11, 2008, the testator allegedly made at least two individuals within a reasonable time after alterations by crossing off phrases on a photocopy witnessing the signing of the will. Minn. Stat. $ 524.2- "2008 photocopy") of the 2006 will and adding 502 (2014). The testator must strictly comply with the handwritten words. The testator allegedly wrote ini- statutory formalities in order to execute a valid will. In tials next to each alteration and signed and dated the re Ludwig's Estate, 79 Minn. 101, 106, 81 N.W. 758. 760-61 (1900) bottom of each page. The testator allegedly wrote on top of the 2008 photocopy, "[the Will dated January Minnesota law provides that a will can be revoked in 19, 2006 is void and to be replaced] with this and all two ways: written in changes." The testator changed the per- (1) by executing a subsequent will that revokes the sonal representative from Johnson to VanHale in the previous will or part expressly or by inconsis 2008 photocopy. tency; or (2) by performing a revocatory act on the will, if the On October 30, 2010, the testator allegedly testator performed the act with the intent and attempted to execute another will ("2010 document") for the purpose of revoking the will or part or if using a downloaded form and completing provi- another individual performed the act in the tes- sions by hand. She allegedly appointed VanHale as tator's conscious presence and by the testator's personal representative and devised to VanHale "all direction. For purposes of this clause, "revoca- (her] property and belonging[s] after [her] debts are tory act on the will" includes burning, tearing, payed." VanHale was n was named the testator's sole bene- canceling, obliterating, or destroying the will or liciary in the 2010 document. any part of it. . .. The parties offered the three purported wills into pro- bate. VanHale contended that the 2010 document Minn. Stat. $ 524.2-507(a). was a valid will, while Johnson argued that the 2006 On appeal from a probate court's decision, "findings will was valid. The district court held that the 2008 of fact will be disturbed only if clearly erroneous." In photocopy and 2010 document were invalid because re Estate of Torgersen, 711 N.W.2d 545, 550 (Minn. they did not comply with will formalities. The court App.2006), review denied (Minn. June 20, 2006) further held that the testator arguably intended to Whether a will is executed in a manner prescribed by revoke the 2006 will, but did not successfully "revoke statute is a question of fact. Johnson v. Heltne, 298 Minn. 187, 191, 214 N.W.2d 224, 227 (1974). But the (continued) with a properly executed document." The district court applied the doctrine of dependent-relative