In re Rutherford D. Brosious Trust Agreement
| Decision Date | 14 May 2018 |
| Docket Number | A17-1409 |
| Parties | In re Rutherford D. Brosious Trust Agreement. |
| Court | Minnesota Court of Appeals |
This opinion will be unpublished and may not be cited except as provided by Minn. Stat. § 480A.08, subd. 3 (2016).
Affirmed
Washington County District Court
Francis J. Rondoni, Margaret M. Grathwol, Gary K. Luloff, Chestnut Cambronne PA, Minneapolis, Minnesota (for appellant Gilbert D. Brosious)
Christopher L. Olson, Timothy R. Geck, GDO LAW, White Bear Lake, Minnesota (for respondent Barbara Brosious)
Nicholas J. Nelson, Caitlin E. Abram, Faegre Baker Daniels LLP, Minneapolis, Minnesota (for respondent U.S. Bank N.A.)
Michael R. Cunningham, Sheryl G. Morrison, Gray, Plant, Mooty, Mooty & Bennett, P.A., Minneapolis, Minnesota (for respondents Children's Health Care Foundation, Science Museum of Minnesota, and White Bear Lake Educational Foundation)
Paul W. Rogosheske, Rogosheske, Rogosheske & Atkins, PLLC, South St. Paul, Minnesota (for respondent Ann Brosious)
Considered and decided by Hooten, Presiding Judge; Johnson, Judge; and Randall, Judge.*
UNPUBLISHED OPINION
This appeal concerns a trust that was created to provide for the grantor's wife, the grantor's two children, and three designated charitable organizations. The estate of one of the grantor's children petitioned the district court for a determination of rights to certain trust assets after the death of the grantor's wife. On motions for summary judgment, the district court determined that, after the death of the grantor's wife, certain assets shall be distributed to the grantor's sole surviving child, not to the estate of the child who pre-deceased the grantor's wife. We affirm.
In 1983, Rutherford D. Brosious created the Rutherford D. Brosious Trust to provide for his then-current wife, Ann Brosious, and for his two adult children from a previous marriage, Rutherford K. Brosious (Randy) and Barbara S. Brosious.
Rutherford amended the trust agreement in 1999. As amended, the trust agreement provides that, during the lifetime of both Rutherford and Ann, the trustee must pay income to Rutherford or expend income for Ann's benefit, and the trustee may distribute principal to Rutherford and Ann. The amended trust agreement also provides that, upon Rutherford's death, the trustee shall make certain distributions of tangible personal property, real property, and specified amounts of money to designated persons. The amended trust agreement further provides that, if Ann survives Rutherford, the trustee shall administer one-half of the remaining assets of the trust for her benefit by paying her net income and distributing to her whatever principal the trustee "deems advisable for [her]care, support, and maintenance." In addition, the trustee "shall administer the remainder of [the] trust [i.e., the other one-half of trust assets, if Ann survives Rutherford] . . . in equal shares for the benefit of [Rutherford's] children," Randy and Barbara.
The amended trust agreement includes additional provisions that govern after Ann's death, and those provisions are at issue on appeal. The amended trust agreement provides as follows:
Rutherford died in 2000. He was survived by Ann, Randy, and Barbara. Five years later, in 2005, Randy's portion of the children's share of the trust, then valued at $1,098,973, was distributed to him, as required by subparagraph 4(C).
Randy died in 2015. One of Randy's two children, Gilbert Brosious, was appointed to serve as the personal representative of Randy's estate. In October 2016, Gilbert, on behalf of the estate, petitioned the district court for a determination of the rights of Randy's estate and other interested parties to assets of the trust upon Ann's eventual death. Specifically, Gilbert asked the district court to interpret the amended trust instrument to provide that Randy's estate is entitled to a distribution of one-half of the marital share of the trust after Ann dies. Barbara and the charitable organizations identified in paragraph4(D) of the amended trust agreement filed separate objections to the petition. The trustee, U.S. Bank, did not take a position.
In June 2017, Ann, Barbara, and the charitable organizations filed separate motions for summary judgment. They argued that the plain language of the amended trust agreement provides that a child of Rutherford may receive a distribution of the marital share of the trust after Ann's death only if the child has survived Ann. Accordingly, they argued that Randy's estate will not be entitled to a distribution from the marital share of the trust after Ann dies because Randy has pre-deceased Ann. In response, Gilbert argued that summary judgment is improper because the amended trust agreement is ambiguous. Gilbert submitted certain extrinsic evidence into the summary-judgment record, including, among other things, prior versions of the trust agreement and the deposition testimony of the attorney Rutherford retained to draft the trust agreement and its amendments.
The district court granted the motions for summary judgment. The district court reasoned as follows:
The four corners of the Trust Agreement unambiguously express Settlor's intent for the remaining property and assets in the Marital Fund to flow to any child who survived Settlor's Wife, not a child who predeceased Settlor's Wife. If Settlor's Daughter is living at the time of Settlor's Wife's death, the remaining property and assets of the Marital Trust are to be distributed to the Children's Trust or the Benefit of Settlor's Daughter, in which the Interested Parties have a remainder interest.
Gilbert appeals. Ann and Barbara have filed separate responsive briefs, in which they argue that the district court correctly interpreted the amended trust agreement. The three charitable organizations have filed a joint responsive brief in which they also arguethat the district court correctly interpreted the amended trust agreement. U.S. Bank has filed a responsive brief only to state that it has "an interest in having the dispute resolved and the beneficiaries of the marital trust after Ann's death determined, as those beneficiaries [presently] have certain administrative rights under Minnesota law."
Gilbert argues that the district court erred by granting the motions for summary judgment. Gilbert contends that the amended trust agreement is ambiguous concerning the disposition of the assets in the marital share of the trust after Ann's death. Gilbert further contends that a trial is necessary to allow the district court to consider extrinsic evidence that will resolve the ambiguity.
A district court must grant a motion for summary judgment if the "pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any, show that there is no genuine issue of material fact and that either party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law." Fabio v. Bellomo, 504 N.W.2d 758, 761 (Minn. 1993); see also Minn. R. Civ. P. 56.03. A genuine issue of material fact exists if a rational trier of fact, considering the record as a whole, could find for the nonmoving party. Frieler v. Carlson Mktg. Grp., Inc., 751 N.W.2d 558, 564 (Minn. 2008). "[T]here is no genuine issue of material fact for trial when the...
To continue reading
Request your trial