Meyer's Estate, In re

Decision Date09 April 1971
Docket NumberNo. 42440,42440
Citation290 Minn. 83,186 N.W.2d 535
PartiesIn re ESTATE of Edward A. MEYER, deceased. STATE of Minnesota, Department of Public Welfare, Appellant, v. Betty ZUTZ, as admrx. of the Estate of Edward A. MEYER, Respondent.
CourtMinnesota Supreme Court

Syllabus by the Court

The phrase 'adverse party' in Minn.St. 525.712, which governs those upon whom notice of appeal from probate to district court must be served, includes any party whose interest in relation to the subject of the appeal is in direct conflict with a reversal or modification of the order or judgment appealed from. Heirs whose respective distributive shares will be reduced if an appellant's claim is allowed against an estate are 'adverse parties' within § 525.712, and failure to serve them with notice of appeal from a probate court decision denies jurisdiction to the district court.

Warren Spannaus, Atty. Gen., Jerome D. Truhn, Craig R. Anderson, Asst. Attys. Gen., St. Paul, for appellant.

Myhre & Huddleson, and Larry G. Jorgenson, Warren, for respondent.

Heard before KNUTSON, C.J., and MURPHY, PETERSON, KELLY, and ODDEN, JJ.

OPINION

DONALD C. ODDEN, Justice. *

This is an appeal from an order of the District Court of Marshall County dismissing the state's appeal from an order of the probate court denying a petition that that court receive, hear, and allow, after time limited, a claim against the estate of Edward A. Meyer, deceased.

Edward A. Meyer died in August 1968 while a patient at the Fergus Falls State Hospital. A petition for the administration of his estate was filed in the probate court of Marshall County, and that court issued an order pursuant to Minn.St. 525.41 setting January 3, 1969, as the deadline for filing claims against said estate.

On March 25, 1969, well after the January 3 deadline, the Department of Public Welfare petitioned the probate court to receive, hear, and allow, after time limited, its claim for hospital care and treatment given decedent during his lifetime at the Fergus Falls State Hospital. The state's claim is authorized under Minn.St. 246.53, and the petition to receive, hear, and allow a claim after time limited is permitted under § 525.411, subd. 1.

The probate court issued an order setting April 9, 1969, as the time of hearing on the petition. Copies were mailed to the petitioner and to the attorney for the administratrix of the estate. At the request of the administratrix, the time for hearing the claim was rescheduled to April 30. Copies of this order were mailed to the same parties.

On April 30, 1969, at the scheduled time, Betty Zutz, the administratrix; her attorney; and Paul C. Meyer, one of the heirs, appeared to object to the claim and the allowance of the state's petition. There was no appearance by, or on behalf of, the State of Minnesota in support of the petition and claim. The probate court, without supporting evidence from the state, considered the claim and determined that the state had notice of the death of Edward A. Meyer; that the reasons for failure to file its claim on time, set forth in the state's petition, did not constitute sufficient cause to excuse that failure; and that the petition must therefore be denied.

The state then petitioned the court to reopen the matter, claiming it had never received notice of the rescheduled April 30 hearing. After a final hearing on July 9, 1969, the probate judge determined that the evidence on the part of the state failed to establish sufficient cause for its failure to file its claim within the time allowed and ordered that such claim be forever barred pursuant to § 525.411.

On July 24, 1969, the state appealed from that order to the district court, serving notice of appeal only upon Betty Zutz, administratrix of the estate, and her husband. On October 15, 1969, Betty Zutz personally, as administratrix of Meyer's estate, and in behalf of his other heirs moved the district court to dismiss the appeal on the grounds that the district court lacked jurisdiction in that the state had failed to make proper service of notice of said appeal as provided for under § 525.712. In re Estate of Dean, 180 Minn. 195, 230 N.W. 584.

The district court heard the matter and on January 7, 1970, issued its order dismissing the state's appeal. The sole question to be resolved here is whether Minn.St. 525.712 requires that an appellant in an appeal from probate to district court serve notice of appeal on all heirs of the estate, regardless of whether they took an active part in the probate court proceedings.

Minn.St. 525.712 provides in part:

'* * * To render the appeal effective (1), the appellant shall serve a notice of appeal, specifying the order, judgment, or decree appealed from upon the adverse party who appeared or upon his attorney, personally, and upon each adverse party of record who did not appear by mail at his last address as the same appears in the court's file of the case and upon the probate judge or clerk, personally, for the adverse party who did not appear and whose address is unknown and shall file in the probate court such notice, together with proof of service thereof.'

Although the record is unclear as to whether Edward Meyer died testate or intestate, both parties agree that Betty Zutz, Paul Meyer, Ellie Lucian, and Margaret Meyer are the sole heirs to the estate and that their names are listed as such in the probate court file. Although the record is also unclear as to who appeared at the July 9, 1969, hearing in probate court, both parties agree that Betty Zutz, as administratrix and individually, and Paul Meyer did appear to contest the state's claim at the April 30, 1969, hearing. Betty Zutz and her husband were served personally with notice of appeal, but the...

To continue reading

Request your trial
2 cases
  • Adams' Estate v. Adams
    • United States
    • Minnesota Supreme Court
    • 22 Junio 1973
    ...perfect the appeal, the district court may permit an amendment on such terms as may be just.' In the recent case of In re Estate of Meyer, 290 Minn. 83, 186 N.W.2d 535 (1971), this court both reaffirmed the rule that compliance with Minn.St. 525.712 for service of notice of appeal is a juri......
  • Estate of Kucera, In re
    • United States
    • Minnesota Supreme Court
    • 9 Abril 1971
    ...With respect to the jurisdiction of the district court, the facts before us are indistinguishable from those presented in In re Estate of Meyer, Minn., 186 N.W.2d 535, filed herewith, and for the reasons presented in that case, the trial court must be affirmed. The district court had no jur......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT