Preview
81-CV-23-104
Filed in District Court
State of Minnesota
4/20/2023 4:03 PM
STATE OF MINNESOTA DISTRICT COURT
CIVIL DIVISION
COUNTY OF WASECA THIRD JUDICIAL DISTRICT
In Re the Matter of the Ronald E. Roehrs Court File No. 81-CV-23-104
Trust dated August 9, 1999. Case Type: Trust
SUPPLEMENTAL MEMORANDUM
IN OPPOSITION TO PETITIONER’S
MOTION FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
INTRODUCTION
Counsel for Petitioner, Michael Roehrs (“Petitioner” or “Michael”) requested
permission from the Court to provide a reply brief to address “newly raised” arguments
presented during the hearing held on April 5, 2023 (the “Hearing”). There were no new issues
raised at the Hearing. All of the Respondents’ oral arguments to the motion for injunctive
relief were limited to the Trust language and the arguments presented in the parties’ briefs.
Petitioner’s initial motion was untimely. Petitioner now asserts three additional
theories post hearing, including: (1) the impact of the First Amendment to the Ronald E.
Roehrs Trust dated August 9, 1999 (the “Trust”) on the identity of beneficiaries; (2) the assets
actually in the Trust; and (3) how the phrase “The [T]rust farm land rent shall be made
available to her during such period to pay real estate taxes, insurance, maintenance and
necessary improvement costs” should be interpreted.
Petitioner’s misinterpretation of the Trust language does not change the fact that the
Trust gives Marvel B. Roehrs (“Bonnie” or “Successor Trustee”) wide discretion to administer
the Trust or that the only remaining assets in the Trust are the homestead and the Farm
Land. Sandra Walstrom (“Respondent”) uses this opportunity to respond to the three issues
Petitioner has asserted are “new” and reiterates that the Trust language speaks for itself.
Bonnie has upheld her duties as Successor Trustee to the Trust and Petitioner’s motion for a
preliminary injunction should be denied.
Page 1 of 5
81-CV-23-104
Filed in District Court
State of Minnesota
4/20/2023 4:03 PM
FACTS
Respondent incorporates the factual record presented in her Memorandum of Law in
Opposition to Michael Roehrs’ Motion for Injunctive Relief and further supplements the
record as follows.
On August 9, 1999, Ronald E. Roehrs (“Grantor”) created a Trust and named himself
the Trustee and his wife, Bonnie, as Successor Trustee. (Amended Petition, Ex. A, ¶ VII. B).
The Trust document gives great deference to the Trustee and subsequently the Successor
Trustee in the administration of the Trust. The Trust, among other things, authorizes Bonnie
to “…sell, option, mortgage, pledge, lease, or convey real or personal property, publicly or
privately, upon such terms and conditions as may appear to be proper, and to execute all
instruments necessary to effect such authority.” (Id. ¶ VI. E) (emphasis added). Therefore,
Bonnie can rent the Trust Farm Land for an amount that she deems proper, “without order
of court and without notice to anyone.” (Id. VI.). Bonnie is allowed to settle claims in favor of
or against the Trust (Id. ¶ VI. F). She is allowed to “manage real estate and personal property,
borrow money…as may appear to be proper.” (Id. ¶ VI. G). Bonnie, as Successor Trustee, is
allowed to allocate between principal and income “as in the sole discretion of the Trustee may
appear to be proper.” (Id. ¶ VI. H) (emphasis added). Bonnie is authorized to make “division
or distribution in money or kind…and the Trustee’s judgment shall be binding upon all
interested parties.” (Id. ¶ VI. J). Bonnie is also allowed to receive compensation for her
services as Successor Trustee. (Id. ¶ VI.O). According to the Trust, Bonnie may retain money
for herself, gift money (even to beneficiaries), and manage the homestead and farm and she
deems proper.
On September 13, 1999, Grantor signed the First Amendment to the Trust (the
“Amendment”). While the Amendment adjusts the language of the life estate, the Grantor’s
intentions remain clear. Bonnie is to have access to the Trust Farm Land rent. The Trust
Farm Land rent “shall be made available to her… to pay real estate taxes, insurance,
maintenance, and necessary improvement costs.” (Id. Amendment ¶ V. A. 1).
While the Trust contemplates an alternate Successor Trustee if Bonnie were unable
or unwilling to serve, this provision was never triggered because Bonnie accepted the role of
Successor Trustee. (Id. ¶ VII. B). Because Bonnie accepted the role, the alternate Successor
Trustee provision is no longer applicable. If Bonnie were to resign, then the provisions in
Page 2 of 5
81-CV-23-104
Filed in District Court
State of Minnesota
4/20/2023 4:03 PM
Section VII, paragraphs C and D would be applied. In other words, all of the Grantor’s adult
children would designate a successor trustee to Bonnie. (Id. ¶ VII. D).
AUTHORITY
Under Minn. Stat. § 501C.0801, trustees have a statutory obligation to administer the
trust in good faith, in accordance with its terms and purposes, and the interests of the
beneficiaries. Further, under Minn. Stat. § 501C.0901, while trustees are required to be
prudent investors of Trust assets, those statutory obligations are superseded by the Trust
instrument itself. “The prudent investor rule, a default rule, may be expanded, restricted,
eliminated, or otherwise altered by the trust instrument. A trustee is not liable to a
beneficiary to the extent that the trustee acted in reasonable reliance on the trust
instrument.” Minn. Stat. 501C.0901 subd.1(b). Here, the language of the Trust prevails over
any statutory obligations and nothing Bonnie has done is inconsistent with the Trust
instrument.
ANALYSIS
I. The Trustee’s Authority Is Clear and Unambiguous
The Amendment to the Trust and the Trust instrument itself are clear. The Grantor
wished to leave his wife with a residence and income necessary to support the same. The
Amendment has no impact on the beneficiaries other than to indicate that upon either the
death of Bonnie or at the time she no longer wishes to reside in the home, the Trust Farmland
should be distributed to Grantor’s six children. (Amended Petition, Ex. A, Amendment ¶
V.A.2). As previously drafted, Bonnie was to have a life estate and the six children would be
the remaindermen. (Id. ¶ V.A.2). The revision made to paragraph V. A. 1. in the Amendment,
provides Bonnie with explicit authority to the Trust Farm Land rent, independent of any
authority granted as the Trustee. Grantor’s intent was to provide his wife with everything
except the Trust Farm Land, which was to be distributed to the children at Bonnie’s death
or her change of residence. The Amendment to the Trust has little impact on the beneficiaries
other than to provide Bonnie with explicit authority to use the Farm Land rental funds and
to revise the life estate language. No other changes were made to the Successor Trustee’s
powers granted in the Trust. Any assertion that Petitioner might make that the Amendment
Trust language somehow limits Bonnie’s authority to access or manage the rental funds is
unsupported.
Page 3 of 5
81-CV-23-104
Filed in District Court
State of Minnesota
4/20/2023 4:03 PM
II. The Homestead and Farm Land are the Only Assets of the Trust
Upon the death of Grantor, the only remaining assets in the Trust are the homestead
and Farm Land. The Trust directs all of Grantor’s “personal property, household goods,
vehicles, equipment, and personal effects formerly owned by [Grantor]” to Bonnie. (Id. ¶
V.A.3). The language in the Amendment directs the distribution of the homestead and Farm
Land at the death of Bonnie or at the time she chooses to change her principal residence.
There is no language in the Trust that suggests any other asset remains in the Trust. In fact,
the paragraph V.A.2. states, “the Trustee shall distribute said building site and trust farm
land to the six children of Ronald E. Roehrs as named in this trust.” (Id. Amendment ¶ V.
A.2). Grantor’s wish was to leave all of his property to his wife except for the Farm Land and
for her to manage the assets at her discretion during her lifetime. Petitioner’s assertion that
other assets exist in the Trust and that he is entitled to them at this time is unsupported by
the language of the Trust instrument.
III. Bonnie Has Complied with Her Duties as Trustee
Petitioner’s final issue raised was regarding the reading of the Trust language, “The
trust farm land rent shall be made available to her during such period to pay real estate
taxes, insurance, maintenance and necessary improvement costs”. (Amended Petition, Ex. A,
Amendment ¶ V.A.1) Bonnie has used the rent to do just that. Petitioner has not and cannot
allege that Bonnie has not paid the real estate taxes, that she has not held insurance on the
property, or that she has failed to make necessary improvements. Bonnie has done all of that,
and often at little to no cost over the last 20 years because many of the improvements and
maintenance was performed by Respondent and her husband, Garry Walstrom at no cost.
(i.e. weekly mowing in the summer of 3.5 acres and plowing the quarter-mile long driveway
in the winters). Petitioner’s main argument in bringing this motion is that Bonnie has
breached her duties as Trustee by renting the land to Respondent’s husband at a rate of
$110.00 per acre and that the above quoted language restricts her from doing so. However,
Petitioner cannot point to anywhere in the Trust that requires Bonnie to rent the Farm Land
at a specific rate. Petitioner suggests that Bonnie renting the land to Respondent’s husband
improperly favors one beneficiary (Walstrom) over others. This could not be further from the
truth. Petitioner, and all of the other siblings know that Respondent and her husband have
helped to maintain the residence for Bonnie as well as maintaining the Farm Land as her
Page 4 of 5
81-CV-23-104
Filed in District Court
State of Minnesota
4/20/2023 4:03 PM
father wished they would do. Rather than taking money for doing the same, they have done
so for more than twenty years at their own expense of time and money. Bonnie has upheld
her duties and maintained the Trust Farm Land as required under the language of the Trust
and Petitioner can show otherwise.
CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, Respondent respectfully requests the Court deny
Petitioner’s motion in its entirety.
MESSICK LAW, PLLC
Dated: April 20, 2023 /s/ B. Steven Messick
B. Steven Messick, Esq.
Atty. Reg. No. 0389735
Bethany J. Rubis, Esq.
Atty. Reg. No. 0398519
Messick Law, PLLC
7595 Currell Blvd. 251444
Woodbury, MN 55125
Phone: (651) 505-0085
Email: steve@messicklaw.com
bethany@messicklaw.com
ATTORNEYS FOR OBJECTOR AND
COUNTER-PETITIONER SANDRA
WALSTROM
Page 5 of 5
Preview
81-CV-23-104 Filed in District Court State of Minnesota 4/20/2023 4:03 PM STATE OF MINNESOTA DISTRICT COURT CIVIL DIVISION COUNTY OF WASECA THIRD JUDICIAL DISTRICT In Re the Matter of the Ronald E. Roehrs Court File No. 81-CV-23-104 Trust dated August 9, 1999. Case Type: Trust SUPPLEMENTAL MEMORANDUM IN OPPOSITION TO PETITIONER’S MOTION FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF INTRODUCTION Counsel for Petitioner, Michael Roehrs (“Petitioner” or “Michael”) requested permission from the Court to provide a reply brief to address “newly raised” arguments presented during the hearing held on April 5, 2023 (the “Hearing”). There were no new issues raised at the Hearing. All of the Respondents’ oral arguments to the motion for injunctive relief were limited to the Trust language and the arguments presented in the parties’ briefs. Petitioner’s initial motion was untimely. Petitioner now asserts three additional theories post hearing, including: (1) the impact of the First Amendment to the Ronald E. Roehrs Trust dated August 9, 1999 (the “Trust”) on the identity of beneficiaries; (2) the assets actually in the Trust; and (3) how the phrase “The [T]rust farm land rent shall be made available to her during such period to pay real estate taxes, insurance, maintenance and necessary improvement costs” should be interpreted. Petitioner’s misinterpretation of the Trust language does not change the fact that the Trust gives Marvel B. Roehrs (“Bonnie” or “Successor Trustee”) wide discretion to administer the Trust or that the only remaining assets in the Trust are the homestead and the Farm Land. Sandra Walstrom (“Respondent”) uses this opportunity to respond to the three issues Petitioner has asserted are “new” and reiterates that the Trust language speaks for itself. Bonnie has upheld her duties as Successor Trustee to the Trust and Petitioner’s motion for a preliminary injunction should be denied. Page 1 of 5 81-CV-23-104 Filed in District Court State of Minnesota 4/20/2023 4:03 PM FACTS Respondent incorporates the factual record presented in her Memorandum of Law in Opposition to Michael Roehrs’ Motion for Injunctive Relief and further supplements the record as follows. On August 9, 1999, Ronald E. Roehrs (“Grantor”) created a Trust and named himself the Trustee and his wife, Bonnie, as Successor Trustee. (Amended Petition, Ex. A, ¶ VII. B). The Trust document gives great deference to the Trustee and subsequently the Successor Trustee in the administration of the Trust. The Trust, among other things, authorizes Bonnie to “…sell, option, mortgage, pledge, lease, or convey real or personal property, publicly or privately, upon such terms and conditions as may appear to be proper, and to execute all instruments necessary to effect such authority.” (Id. ¶ VI. E) (emphasis added). Therefore, Bonnie can rent the Trust Farm Land for an amount that she deems proper, “without order of court and without notice to anyone.” (Id. VI.). Bonnie is allowed to settle claims in favor of or against the Trust (Id. ¶ VI. F). She is allowed to “manage real estate and personal property, borrow money…as may appear to be proper.” (Id. ¶ VI. G). Bonnie, as Successor Trustee, is allowed to allocate between principal and income “as in the sole discretion of the Trustee may appear to be proper.” (Id. ¶ VI. H) (emphasis added). Bonnie is authorized to make “division or distribution in money or kind…and the Trustee’s judgment shall be binding upon all interested parties.” (Id. ¶ VI. J). Bonnie is also allowed to receive compensation for her services as Successor Trustee. (Id. ¶ VI.O). According to the Trust, Bonnie may retain money for herself, gift money (even to beneficiaries), and manage the homestead and farm and she deems proper. On September 13, 1999, Grantor signed the First Amendment to the Trust (the “Amendment”). While the Amendment adjusts the language of the life estate, the Grantor’s intentions remain clear. Bonnie is to have access to the Trust Farm Land rent. The Trust Farm Land rent “shall be made available to her… to pay real estate taxes, insurance, maintenance, and necessary improvement costs.” (Id. Amendment ¶ V. A. 1). While the Trust contemplates an alternate Successor Trustee if Bonnie were unable or unwilling to serve, this provision was never triggered because Bonnie accepted the role of Successor Trustee. (Id. ¶ VII. B). Because Bonnie accepted the role, the alternate Successor Trustee provision is no longer applicable. If Bonnie were to resign, then the provisions in Page 2 of 5 81-CV-23-104 Filed in District Court State of Minnesota 4/20/2023 4:03 PM Section VII, paragraphs C and D would be applied. In other words, all of the Grantor’s adult children would designate a successor trustee to Bonnie. (Id. ¶ VII. D). AUTHORITY Under Minn. Stat. § 501C.0801, trustees have a statutory obligation to administer the trust in good faith, in accordance with its terms and purposes, and the interests of the beneficiaries. Further, under Minn. Stat. § 501C.0901, while trustees are required to be prudent investors of Trust assets, those statutory obligations are superseded by the Trust instrument itself. “The prudent investor rule, a default rule, may be expanded, restricted, eliminated, or otherwise altered by the trust instrument. A trustee is not liable to a beneficiary to the extent that the trustee acted in reasonable reliance on the trust instrument.” Minn. Stat. 501C.0901 subd.1(b). Here, the language of the Trust prevails over any statutory obligations and nothing Bonnie has done is inconsistent with the Trust instrument. ANALYSIS I. The Trustee’s Authority Is Clear and Unambiguous The Amendment to the Trust and the Trust instrument itself are clear. The Grantor wished to leave his wife with a residence and income necessary to support the same. The Amendment has no impact on the beneficiaries other than to indicate that upon either the death of Bonnie or at the time she no longer wishes to reside in the home, the Trust Farmland should be distributed to Grantor’s six children. (Amended Petition, Ex. A, Amendment ¶ V.A.2). As previously drafted, Bonnie was to have a life estate and the six children would be the remaindermen. (Id. ¶ V.A.2). The revision made to paragraph V. A. 1. in the Amendment, provides Bonnie with explicit authority to the Trust Farm Land rent, independent of any authority granted as the Trustee. Grantor’s intent was to provide his wife with everything except the Trust Farm Land, which was to be distributed to the children at Bonnie’s death or her change of residence. The Amendment to the Trust has little impact on the beneficiaries other than to provide Bonnie with explicit authority to use the Farm Land rental funds and to revise the life estate language. No other changes were made to the Successor Trustee’s powers granted in the Trust. Any assertion that Petitioner might make that the Amendment Trust language somehow limits Bonnie’s authority to access or manage the rental funds is unsupported. Page 3 of 5 81-CV-23-104 Filed in District Court State of Minnesota 4/20/2023 4:03 PM II. The Homestead and Farm Land are the Only Assets of the Trust Upon the death of Grantor, the only remaining assets in the Trust are the homestead and Farm Land. The Trust directs all of Grantor’s “personal property, household goods, vehicles, equipment, and personal effects formerly owned by [Grantor]” to Bonnie. (Id. ¶ V.A.3). The language in the Amendment directs the distribution of the homestead and Farm Land at the death of Bonnie or at the time she chooses to change her principal residence. There is no language in the Trust that suggests any other asset remains in the Trust. In fact, the paragraph V.A.2. states, “the Trustee shall distribute said building site and trust farm land to the six children of Ronald E. Roehrs as named in this trust.” (Id. Amendment ¶ V. A.2). Grantor’s wish was to leave all of his property to his wife except for the Farm Land and for her to manage the assets at her discretion during her lifetime. Petitioner’s assertion that other assets exist in the Trust and that he is entitled to them at this time is unsupported by the language of the Trust instrument. III. Bonnie Has Complied with Her Duties as Trustee Petitioner’s final issue raised was regarding the reading of the Trust language, “The trust farm land rent shall be made available to her during such period to pay real estate taxes, insurance, maintenance and necessary improvement costs”. (Amended Petition, Ex. A, Amendment ¶ V.A.1) Bonnie has used the rent to do just that. Petitioner has not and cannot allege that Bonnie has not paid the real estate taxes, that she has not held insurance on the property, or that she has failed to make necessary improvements. Bonnie has done all of that, and often at little to no cost over the last 20 years because many of the improvements and maintenance was performed by Respondent and her husband, Garry Walstrom at no cost. (i.e. weekly mowing in the summer of 3.5 acres and plowing the quarter-mile long driveway in the winters). Petitioner’s main argument in bringing this motion is that Bonnie has breached her duties as Trustee by renting the land to Respondent’s husband at a rate of $110.00 per acre and that the above quoted language restricts her from doing so. However, Petitioner cannot point to anywhere in the Trust that requires Bonnie to rent the Farm Land at a specific rate. Petitioner suggests that Bonnie renting the land to Respondent’s husband improperly favors one beneficiary (Walstrom) over others. This could not be further from the truth. Petitioner, and all of the other siblings know that Respondent and her husband have helped to maintain the residence for Bonnie as well as maintaining the Farm Land as her Page 4 of 5 81-CV-23-104 Filed in District Court State of Minnesota 4/20/2023 4:03 PM father wished they would do. Rather than taking money for doing the same, they have done so for more than twenty years at their own expense of time and money. Bonnie has upheld her duties and maintained the Trust Farm Land as required under the language of the Trust and Petitioner can show otherwise. CONCLUSION For the foregoing reasons, Respondent respectfully requests the Court deny Petitioner’s motion in its entirety. MESSICK LAW, PLLC Dated: April 20, 2023 /s/ B. Steven Messick B. Steven Messick, Esq. Atty. Reg. No. 0389735 Bethany J. Rubis, Esq. Atty. Reg. No. 0398519 Messick Law, PLLC 7595 Currell Blvd. 251444 Woodbury, MN 55125 Phone: (651) 505-0085 Email: steve@messicklaw.com bethany@messicklaw.com ATTORNEYS FOR OBJECTOR AND COUNTER-PETITIONER SANDRA WALSTROM Page 5 of 5