 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
In re Estate of Spangler12/24/2002
Considered and decided by Klaphake , Presiding Judge, Kalitowski , Judge, and Harten , Judge.
Appellant challenges the district court's order appointing a personal representative for her deceased husband's estate. Because we see no error in the district court's decision to appoint a personal representative, we affirm.
FACTS
On 5 April 2000, Michael Spangler, Timothy Hannon, and William Wilson died in a plane crash in Florida. All three men were pilots employed by BankAir, Inc. (BankAir). Spangler and Hannon were preparing to take a flight exam, and Wilson was instructing them. Spangler was a Minnesota resident. His widow and sole heir, appellant Evon Spangler, never commenced proceedings to probate her husband's estate.
In June 2001, Hannon's parents filed a wrongful death action in Florida against multiple parties, including Spangler's estate. They were unable to serve process on the estate, however, because a personal representative had never been appointed.
In January 2002, F. Joseph Williams, acting on behalf of Hannon's parents, petitioned to begin formal testacy proceedings in Minnesota. In the petition, Williams stated that he was an "interested person" because Hannon's parents were "creditors" of Spangler's estate. He also stated:
This petition is brought for the purpose of a wrongful death lawsuit brought against the Estate of Matthew Spangler, which is attached hereto. This negligence action cannot be maintained without the Estate of Matthew Spangler. There is insurance coverage for the airplane accident, which would cover Matthew Spangler.
Williams included a copy of a liability insurance policy held by BankAir. The policy indemnified BankAir's employees from claims asserted by other employees arising out of the use of its aircraft. Finally, Williams requested that the district court appoint him personal representative of Spangler's estate.
Appellant formally objected to the appointment of Williams as personal representative of her husband's estate, arguing that Williams had fraudulently claimed that Hannon's parents were creditors of Spangler's estate. Appellant also asserted that, if the district court needed to appoint a personal representative, she should be appointed. After a hearing, the district court appointed Williams as personal representative but ordered that appellant would become successor personal representative upon qualification, acceptance and notice to Williams. Appellant was eventually appointed personal representative.
Appellant now challenges the district court's order appointing her. She argues that (1) Williams was not an "interested person" and therefore lacked standing to bring the petition, (2) service on appellant was improper, and (3) Spangler's estate had no assets.
DECISION
1. Standing As Interested Person
Application of a statute to the undisputed facts of a case involves a question of law, and the district court's decision is not binding on this court. O'Malley v. Ulland Bros., 549 N.W.2d 889, 892 (Minn. 1996).
Under Minnesota's Uniform Probate Code, " formal testacy proceeding may be commenced by an interested person * * * filing a petition * * *." Minn. Stat. ยงรก524.3-401 (2000). An "interested person" is defined to include heirs, devisees, children, spouses, creditors, beneficiaries and any others having a property right in or claim against the estate of a decedent, ward or protected person which may be affected by the proceeding. It also includes * * * other fiduciaries representing interested persons. The meaning as it relates to particular persons may vary from time to time and m
Page 1 2 Minnesota Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|