 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
In re Estate of Spangler12/24/2002
ust be determined according to the particular purposes of, and matter involved in, any proceeding. Minn. Stat. §á524.1-201(24) (2000) (emphasis added).
The term "interested person," like all provisions of the probate code, is to be liberally construed. See Minn. Stat. §á524.1-102(a) (2000) (provisions of probate code are to be liberally construed); see also In re Eklund's Estate, 174 Minn. 28, 33, 218 N.W. 235, 237 (1928) (construing predecessor statute and stating that " t is now well settled in this state that a literal, strict construction is not to be placed upon the words 'person interested in the estate'").
Minn. Stat. §á524.3-803 (2000) concerns limitations on the presentation of claims against an estate. The statute provides:
Nothing in this section affects or prevents: * * *
any proceeding to establish liability of the decedent or the personal representative for which there is protection by liability insurance, to the limits of the insurance protection only[.] Minn. Stat. §á524.3-803(c)(2).
The district court relied on this statute and implicitly found that Williams was an interested person when it granted his petition. The district court concluded that
he appointment of a personal representative of the Estate is necessary for the Florida Court to reach the decision whether [Spangler's] estate is liable for anything from which his estate is protected by liability insurance. See also Minn. Stat. §á524.3-104 (2000) (a proceeding to enforce a claim against an estate may not be commenced "before the appointment of a personal representative").
The legislature has explicitly recognized the validity of proceedings against an estate for which there is protection by liability insurance. We conclude that the district court did not err in finding that Williams was an interested person and appointing a personal representative so that such a proceeding could commence.
2. Notice of Appointment Proceedings
In proceedings for the formal appointment of a personal representative, Minn. R. Gen. Pract. 404(b) provides that
ailed notice shall be given to * * * all interested persons as defined by the code * * * and shall include in appropriate cases * * * lawyers representing the interested persons.
Although appellant received notice of the proceedings, she argues that service was improper because her Florida attorney did not receive notice. Minn. Stat. §á524.1-401(d) (2000), however, states that " o defect in any notice * * * shall limit or affect the validity of the appointment * * * of the personal representative." Appellant received notice, and Williams's failure to send notice to appellant's Florida attorney does not affect the validity of the district court's appointment of a personal representative.
3. Lack of Assets
Appellant argues that no personal representative should have been appointed because the estate had no assets. An appellate court will reverse a district court's findings of fact "only when those findings are clearly erroneous." Fletcher v. St. Paul Pioneer Press, 589 N.W.2d 96, 102 (Minn. 1999) (citing Minn. R. Civ. P. 52.01). "Findings of fact are considered clearly erroneous only if they are not reasonably supported by the evidence." Id. The district court found that Spangler's estate included at least some assets. The record supports this finding; appellant admitted that Spangler left an automobile worth $900.
We conclude that the district court did not err in appointing a personal representative.
Affirmed.
|