Wan v. Estate of Pape
| Decision Date | 19 January 2016 |
| Docket Number | A15-0812 |
| Parties | Marjorie Go wan, et al., Appellants, v. The Estate of Robert E. Pape, et al., Respondents. |
| 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This opinion will be unpublished and may not be cited except as provided by Minn.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 (2014).
Affirmed in part and reversed in part
Polk County District Court
DeWayne Johnston, Johnston Law Office, Grand Forks, North Dakota (for appellants)
Douglas A. Christensen, Pearson Christensen, PLLP, Grand Forks, North Dakota (for respondents)
Considered and decided by Reyes, Presiding Judge; Hooten, Judge; and Kirk, Judge.
UNPUBLISHED OPINION
In this real-property dispute, appellants argue that the district court erred by: (1) applying res judicata, based upon a prior judgment and release of claims, to bar all of appellants' claims against all respondents; (2) granting summary judgment in favor of respondents on the contract-related claims; and (3) ruling on the merits of the contract- related claims after applying res judicata. Respondents argue that the district court erred by exercising personal jurisdiction over respondents Henrietta Pape and the Estate of Robert E. Pape. Because the district court erred in exercising jurisdiction over these respondents, we reverse in part. Because the prior release of claims bars all current claims, and the district court did not err in granting summary judgment on the contract-related claims or ruling in the alternative on this basis, we affirm in part.
This appeal involves a dispute over real property once owned by Clara Pape and Robert E. Pape, who are both deceased. Robert E. Pape had children with the first two of his three wives. With his first wife, Luella Pape, he had four children: Marjorie Gowan, Dorothy Danielson, Rodney Pape, and Robert D. Pape. With his second wife, Clara Pape, he had one child, Carol Johnson. Rodney Pape had three children: Dan Pape, Rick Pape, and Gary Pape. Robert D. Pape has a son, Ronald Pape, who is married to Sharleen Pape.
On June 11, 1992, Clara Pape and Robert E. Pape each executed a trust agreement (the Pape Trusts). In each of the Pape Trusts, the settlor reserved the right, "to be exercised . . . without the consent or participation of any other person," "[t]o amend, in whole or in part, or to revoke this [a]greement by a writing delivered to my [t]rustees." Both of the trusts named Robert D. Pape as a trustee.
Clara's trust (the Clara Pape Trust) contained the following provision:
It is Robert's and my intent that whether through this trust or the Robert Pape Trust each child eventually receive the following farmland prior to distribution of the residue of our estates . . . .
Robert's trust (the Robert E. Pape Trust) contained a reciprocal provision:
It is Clara's and my intent that whether through this trust or the Clara Pape Trust each child eventually receive the following farmland prior to distribution of the residue of our estates . . . .
Following these intent provisions, each trust contained a list of real property to be conveyed to each child of Robert E. Pape, after the deaths of Clara and Robert E. Pape. The lists were identical. The Clara Pape Trust contained certain real property designated to pass to Robert D. Pape. The Robert E. Pape Trust contained the real property designated to pass to the remaining children, along with additional real property for Robert D. Pape.
After Clara Pape and Robert E. Pape created their trusts, they told Gowan, Danielson, Rodney Pape, Robert D. Pape, and Johnson about the real property each would be receiving. Johnson was to receive the property described as NW 1/4, Section 26, Twp. 153 N., R. 50 W., Polk County, Minnesota, except for the parcel that had been deeded to her in 1973. On that previously deeded parcel, Johnson built a home and a business. To prevent flooding on this property, she also built a dike located on the trust property that she was designated to receive.
Clara Pape died in 1994. The real property held in her trust was distributed in accordance with the trust's provisions. In 1998, Robert E. Pape married Henrietta Pape.
In 2007, Robert E. Pape amended his trust to provide Ronald Pape, his grandson, an exclusive option to purchase all of the real property contained in the Robert E. Pape Trust for $800.00 an acre. In 2009, Ronald Pape exercised the option and the real property inthe trust was conveyed to him and his wife Sharleen Pape for their joint lives and then to their children, as grantees.
In 2011, Rodney Pape, Gowan, Danielson, and Johnson initiated a civil action against Robert D. Pape, individually and as trustee of the Pape Trusts, and the Pape Trusts. The plaintiffs in this action sought (1) an accounting; (2) a determination of breach of fiduciary duty; (3) removal for cause pursuant to Minn. Stat. § 501B.16(9) (2014); (4) appointment of a trustee; (5) equitable relief to address breach of trust; and (6) attorney fees.
After Robert E. Pape's death in July 2011, the parties settled the suit based upon an agreement that Ronald Pape would transfer to Johnson a portion of the real property he purchased pursuant to the option. In consideration of this conveyance, the plaintiffs in the prior action agreed that the Robert E. Pape Trust, as amended in 2007, and the Clara Pape Trust "are valid trusts and not subject to any type of challenge." They also agreed to release all claims asserted in the action and all claims "of any [sort] arising in contract [or] tort, under any theory of law pertaining to or attributed to the administration of trusts[]" against Robert D. Pape individually or as a trustee of both trusts. The release of claims bound not only the plaintiffs as beneficiaries but also "their heirs, successors," "assigns," and "personal representatives."
In 2014, appellants Gowan, Danielson, Johnson, Dan Pape, and Rick Pape1 initiated the action currently before us on appeal. The complaint asserted claims against each respondent as follows:
The complaint alleged that, at the time Robert E. Pape amended his trust, "he no longer knew the value of his property or understood the value of money" and that "Henrietta J. Pape, Robert D. Pape, and Ronald Pape convinced an ailing Robert E. Pape to amend" his trust.
Robert D. Pape, Ronald Pape, and Sharleen Pape were personally served in April 2014. They filed an answer in May 2014. There is no evidence that the other respondents, Henrietta J. Pape and the Estate of Robert E. Pape, were served or have participated in these proceedings.
In September 2014, appellants moved for summary judgment and declaratory judgment, arguing that Robert E. Pape and Clara Pape had a contract for succession under Minn. Stat. § 524.2-514 (2014). In November, respondents objected to the motion, arguing that: (1) the district court lacked jurisdiction over the Estate of Robert E. Pape because the estate had not been opened and no personal representative had been appointed; (2) the district court lacked personal jurisdiction over Henrietta Pape because she had not been served with the summons and complaint; (3) appellants did not meet the statutory requirements of Minn. Stat. § 524.2-514 to establish a contract concerning succession; and (4) the judgment of dismissal of the 2011 civil action, which incorporated the release of claims, barred appellants from pursuing the current claims. On January 2, 2015, the district court denied appellants' motion, concluding that: (1) the plaintiffs common to the 2011 action and the current action had released their claims in the earlier action; and (2) appellants failed to establish that there was a contract precluding revocation under Minn. Stat. § 524.2-514 because the trusts were revocable by their terms.
On January 26, respondents moved for summary judgment, arguing the same two reasons upon which the district court denied appellants' motion. In February, appellants filed a cross-motion for summary judgment and declaratory relief. Appellants argued that Robert E. Pape and Clara Pape had a contract not to revoke the Pape Trusts, that the release of claims did not bar the breach-of-contract claim because it only barred claims involving the actions of Robert D. Pape, and that respondents had waived summary judgment to their remaining claims by failing to provide any legal analysis.
In March 2015, the district court granted respondents' motion for summary judgment, and denied appellants' motion. This time, the district court described the 2011 release of claims and resulting judgment as having the effect of res judicata upon all of appellants' claims. Again, the district court found that, as a matter of law, there was no contract for succession. The district court made this an alternative basis for summary judgment for the claims of breach of contract, intentional interference with contract, and unjust enrichment, as well as the remedy of specific performance.
This appeal follows.
A judgment is void if the issuing court lacked personal jurisdiction over the parties. Bode v. Minn. Dep't of Natural Res., 594 N.W.2d 257, 261 (Minn. App. 1999), aff'd, 612 N.W.2d 862 (Minn. 2000). "Whether personal jurisdiction exists is a question of law which we review de novo." Juelich v. Yamazaki Mazak Optonics Corp., 682 N.W.2d 565, 569 (Minn. 2004).
Here, the district court never ruled on respondents' argument that it lacked personal...
To continue reading
Request your trial