In re Marriage of Legred
| Decision Date | 24 April 2023 |
| Docket Number | A22-0543,A22-0545,A22-0547 |
| Parties | Brenda Legred, f/k/a Brenda Godlove, Respondent, v. Brent Legred, Appellant (A22-0543), and The Estate of Darlene Legred, a/k/a Darlene I. Legred, Respondent; and Estate of: Darlene Legred, a/k/a Darlene I. Legred, Decedent (A22-0545); and In Re: Credit Shelter Trust Established pursuant to the Last Will and Testament of Thilmer M. Legred dated November 25, 1996 (A22-0547). |
| Court | Minnesota Court of Appeals |
This opinion is nonprecedential except as provided by Minn. R Civ. App. P. 136.01, subd. 1(c).
Faribault County District Court File Nos. 22-CV-20-675 22-PR-18-444, 22-PR-20-413
Kim Ruckdaschel-Haley, Jennifer Lammers, Michael A. Stephani Best & Flanagan, LLP, Minneapolis, Minnesota (for respondent Brenda Legred) Justin P. Weinberg, Adam G. Chandler, Amanda N. Juelson, Taft Stettinius & Hollister LLP, Minneapolis, Minnesota (for appellant Brent Legred)
Mary L. Hahn, Jacqueline A. Dorsey, Hvistendahl, Moersch, Dorsey & Hahn, P.A., Northfield, Minnesota (for respondents Merchants Bank, N.A. and Estate of Darlene Legred)
Considered and decided by Smith, Tracy M., Presiding Judge; Reilly, Judge; and Cochran, Judge.
These consolidated appeals arise out of a dispute between siblings appellant/cross-respondent Brent Legred and respondent/cross-appellant Brenda Legred about the effect of a rental option in their late mother's will. The will gave Brent[1] the option to rent farm property that, at the time of their mother's death, was owned in part by their mother and in part by a trust established by their father's will. Brenda brought actions to partition the property, to collect rent from Brent on behalf of their mother's estate, and to collect rent from Brent on behalf of the trust. After the district court granted in part and denied in part Brenda's motion for partial summary judgment, the actions were consolidated for a bench trial. Following trial, the district court issued an order and judgment for partition determining that their mother's will did not apply to the trust's interest in the property and an order requiring Brent to pay damages for rent owed to their mother's estate and the trust.
On appeal, Brent challenges (1) the determination that their mother's will did not create any encumbrance on the trust's interest in the property; (2) the finding that he did not pay rent in 2018 and the award of damages for that rent; (3) the findings about the meaning of "average fair rental value" in their mother's will; and (4) the award of damages for additional rent owed for 2019, 2020, and 2021. In a related appeal, Brenda contends that (1) the rental option afforded to Brent in their mother's will is unconstitutional and void and (2) the amount of damages awarded to their mother's estate for additional rent for 2019, 2020, and 2021 is clearly erroneous and should be higher. We affirm.
At issue are eight tracts of primarily agricultural land in Faribault County, totaling slightly over 800 tillable acres. Brent and Brenda's mother and father, Darlene and Thilmer Legred, farmed and lived on the property for many years. Thilmer and Darlene each owned an undivided one-half interest in the property.
In the early 2000s, after Thilmer's health declined, Thilmer and Darlene began renting parts of the property to Brent and to their nephews for their respective farming operations. In 2009, Brent began renting the whole property.
Thilmer passed away in 2011. His will provided that his interest in the property was devised to Darlene but, if Darlene elected to disclaim all or part of that interest, the disclaimed portion would be distributed and administered as the Thilmer M. Legred Credit Shelter Trust. As provided in Thilmer's will, Darlene was trustee of the trust. The trust instrument provided that the trust was irrevocable and, upon the death of Thilmer's spouse, the net proceeds of the trust would be given to Brent and Brenda in equal shares.
Darlene disclaimed an undivided 60.485% of Thilmer's one-half interest in the property. As a result, Darlene owned a 69.7575% interest in the property and the trust owned a 30.2425% interest in the property.
Following Thilmer's death, Brent continued to rent the property. Each year, he paid $43,951.74 to Darlene and $67,276.25 to the trust.
Darlene died in 2018. At the time of her death, Darlene still owned a 69.7575% interest in the property and the trust still owned a 30.2425% interest. As relevant here, Darlene's will stated:
(Emphasis added.) Darlene's will also appointed Brent and Brenda as personal representatives for Darlene's estate. In addition, under a trust provision that triggered on Darlene's death, Brenda became trustee of the trust.
Following Darlene's death, Brent continued to farm the whole property. However, Brent and Brenda could not agree on the meaning of "average fair rental value in Faribault County" in the rental option in paragraph 2.5 of Darlene's will. That disagreement over the amount of rent that Brent should pay triggered this litigation. During the litigation, Brent continued to make the same rent payments, split between the estate and the trust.
In July 2020, Brenda sought to recover rent for the property from Brent by filing petitions in the file for Darlene's estate (22-PR-18-444) and the trust file (22-PR-20-413).
Parallel to her efforts to recover rent, Brenda sought to disentangle her and Brent's interests in the property. In November 2020, Brenda, in her capacity as trustee, distributed the trust's undivided 30.2425% interest to Brent and Brenda as tenants in common. Then, in December 2020, Brenda sought partition of the property by filing a partition action against Brent (22-CV-20-675) and a petition in the trust file (22-PR-20-413).
Brenda brought a motion for partial summary judgment, asserting that (1) the rental option in paragraph 2.5 of Darlene's will was void under Article I, section 15 of the Minnesota Constitution; (2) in the alternative, the option to rent the property distributable by Darlene's will should be limited to 21 years after 2018; and (3) the rental option in paragraph 2.5 of Darlene's will did not apply to the trust's 30.2425% interest in the property.
After a hearing, the district court granted in part and denied in part Brenda's motion. The district court determined that the rental option was not void, that disputed facts precluded summary judgment on Brent's exercise of the rental option, and that the rental option applied only to Darlene's interest and not to the trust's interest.
Following the grant of partial summary judgment, the three district court files-the estate file, the trust file, and the partition action-were consolidated. The district court held a four-day bench trial addressing (1) the meaning of "fair rental value" in paragraph 2.5; (2) whether Brent owed rent for 2018; (3) whether Brent owed additional rent for 2019, 2020, and 2021, and if so, how much; and (4) the extent of the parties' respective interests in the property.
The district court, in its order following trial, determined that (1) the "average fair rental value in Faribault County" under the rental option is $240 per tillable acre; (2) Brent owed the estate and the trust a total of $111,228 in rent for 2018; and (3) Brent owed the estate additional rent of $63,112.08 per year for 2019, 2020, and 2021.
The district court also filed an order and judgment for partition, stating that Brent and Brenda each had a 15.12125% undivided interest in the property originating from the trust and a 34.87875% undivided interest in the property originating from Darlene's estate.[3]The order stated that Brenda's 15.12125% undivided interest originating from the trust was not "subject to any encumbrance created by Darlene's will."
Brent appealed in each of the three district court files, challenging the grant of partial summary judgment, the order following trial, and the order and judgment for partition. These appeals were consolidated, and Brenda filed a notice of related appeal, challenging the denial of partial summary judgment and the damages award in the order following trial.
These consolidated appeals were stayed pending a dispute about an alleged settlement between the parties. After Brent's counsel filed a copy of the district court's order denying a motion to enforce the alleged settlement agreement, we dissolved the stay. We then denied Brent's motion to stay these appeals based on his appeals of that order.
Because of the interconnected nature of the issues raised by the parties, we address the issues as follows. First, we address Brenda's argument that paragraph 2.5 of Darlene's will is void under article I, section 15 of the Minnesota Constitution. Second, we address Brent's contentions that the right of first refusal and the rental option in Darlene's will applied to both Darlene's interest and the trust's interest in the property. Finally, we address the parties' challenges to the district court's findings relating to rent.
Brenda contends that the district court erred by denying the part of her motion for summary judgment seeking a determination that the rental option given to Brent...
To continue reading
Request your trial