Preview
81-CV-23-104
Filed in District Court
State of Minnesota
3/30/2023 8:56 AM
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
MEMORANDUM IN OPPOSITION TO
PETITIONER’S MOTION FOR
INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
The memorandum herein is submitted in support of Sandra Walstrom’s opposition to
Michael Roehr’s motion for a temporary injunction.
INTRODUCTION
Ronald E. Roehrs established a revocable trust on August 9, 1999 (the “Trust”). At
that time, Ronald was married to Marvel B. Roehrs (“Bonnie”). Bonnie was Ronald’s second
wife. The children of Ronald are Janet Tharp, Rhonda Conrath, Daniel Roehrs, Sandra
Walstrom, Michael Roehrs, and Steven Roehrs.
The main asset of the Trust is a homestead and adjoining farm, which consists of
approximately 108 acres of tillable land. At the time the Trust was created, Ronald was
diagnosed with cancer. Ronald wanted to ensure that his wife had a life estate in residence
and income from the farm rent. Ronald appointed Bonnie as his successor Trustee and
instructed Bonnie to rent the farm to Garry Walstrom (the husband of Sandra Walstrom),
and that Garry be charged $110.00 per acre to rent the farm. Sandra Walstrom Affidavit ¶
25 (hereinafter “Walstrom Aff.”). Garry rented the farm from the Trust each year since 2000,
at a rate of $110.00 per acre. Walstrom Aff. ¶ 25. All of Ronald’s children were aware of the
rental terms. Walstrom Aff. ¶ 26.
Michael has a strained relationship with his siblings (apart from Steven) as well as
his mother and Bonnie. Walstrom Aff. ¶ 6. Michael initiated multiple civil suits against his
brother Daniel and his mother, which were ultimately not successful. Walstrom Aff. ¶ 7.
On or about July 23, 2022, Michael sent a stream of rambling, angry and threatening
text messages to his sister Sandra Walstrom. Walstrom Aff. ¶ 5, Ex. A. In his messages,
Page 1 of 9
81-CV-23-104
Filed in District Court
State of Minnesota
3/30/2023 8:56 AM
Michael accused Sandra and Daniel of financial and other wrongdoings. Walstrom Aff., Ex.
A. Some of the allegations involved the Trust, while others appeared to rehash old disputes
with Daniel. Id. Sandra unsuccessfully attempted to deescalate Michael, who concluded the
text stating “I carry a big stick, I suggest you stop fucking with me.” Id.
During Michael’s visit to Minnesota toward the end of November 2022, he brought
with him a pre-printed letter of resignation for Bonnie to sign. Walstrom Aff. ¶15. Again, in
December 2022, Michael and his brother Steven traveled to Minnesota in an attempt to force
Bonnie to resign as trustee and move out of her home. Walstrom Aff. ¶ 16. Bonnie refused
and was traumatized by Michael and Steven’s attempt to intimidate her. Walstrom Aff. ¶ 19.
Michael and Steven were instructed that any future communication with Bonnie needed to
be in writing. Walstrom Aff. ¶ 21.
On December 20, 2022, Michael and Steven, through their first lawyer, sent a request
to Bonnie for her to provide information regarding her administration of the Trust. Walstrom
Aff. ¶ 22. Bonnie sent the requested information on February 9, 2022. Walstrom Aff. ¶ 23.
The information did not show any untoward behavior, or payments or distributions to
anyone. Walstrom Aff. ¶24.
In his subsequent correspondence, Michael argued that the average farm rent in
Waseca County was $208.00 an acre and demanded that rents be increased. Walstrom Aff. ¶
30. Garry and Bonnie had already signed a lease for Garry to rent the farmland for 2023.
Walstrom Aff. ¶ 29. At Michael’s request, Garry and Bonnie agreed to increase the rent to
$208.00 per acre. Walstrom Aff. ¶ 31.
Despite no evidence of mismanagement, Michael initiated the above-captioned
matter. Walstrom Aff. ¶ 24. Michael alleges that Bonnie is incapacitated, and that Sandra
and her siblings (apart from Steven) are somehow financially benefiting from the Trust.
Walstrom Aff. ¶ 25, Michael’s Exhibit D. In his latest filing, Michael alleges that Garry is
paying his siblings (apart from Steven) money under the table for his rent of the farmland.
Id. Michael has cited no evidence to support his allegation. Id.
Michael sent a letter dated March 9, 2023 to his siblings. Walstrom Aff. ¶ 33. In his
letter, Michael offered to rent the farmland for $400.00 per acre, on the condition that the
rent is deposited with the Court. Walstrom Aff. ¶¶ 33 and 37. The Trustee and Michael’s
siblings (apart from Steven) rejected Michael’s offer, as a valid lease exists for the 2023 crop
Page 2 of 9
81-CV-23-104
Filed in District Court
State of Minnesota
3/30/2023 8:56 AM
year, and Michael has no means by which to farm the land. Walstrom Aff. ¶¶ 36, 38, and 39.
The latter puts the land at risk of going fallow, which could harm its production in future
years.
It is clear that Michael’s offer to rent the farmland was made solely for the purpose of
creating a crisis to which his injunction is his proposed remedy. Walstrom Aff. ¶ 41. The
injunction, if granted, will place the farm at risk of sitting idle for the 2023 crop year, with
no additional rents being paid to the Trust.
AUTHORITY
A party seeking an injunction must establish that they are without a legal remedy,
and the injunction is necessary to prevent great and irreparable injury. Pac. Equip. & Irr.,
Inc. v. Toro Co., 519 N.W.2d 911, 914 (Minn. Ct. App. 1994). Courts must apply the following
five factors in order to grant a temporary injunction:
1. The nature of the relationship between the parties prior to the dispute.
2. The harm alleged to be suffered if the injunction is denied compared to harm on the
enjoined party if the injunction is issued.
3. The likelihood that one party will prevail on the merits.
4. Public policy in state and federal statutes.
5. The burden on the Court in supervising and enforcing the injunction.
Id.
ANALYSIS
I. The Parties Relations Support Denial of Injunction
The relationship of the parties at issue in this matter is that of Trustee and beneficiary
of the Trust. “A temporary injunction is an extraordinary equitable remedy, and its purpose
is to preserve the status quo until adjudication of the case on the merits.” Id. at 915 (citing
Miller v. Foley, 317 N.W.2d 710, 712 (Minn.1982)). Garry Walstrom has rented the farmland
from the Trust since 2000. Walstrom Aff. ¶ 27. He has rented the farmland for $110.00 per
acre pursuant to the agreement that was made prior to the death of Ronald Roehrs. Id. The
lease terms, including its price, was known to all parties since its inception. Walstrom Aff. ¶
28. Most recently, Garry and Bonnie entered into a land rental agreement for crop year 2023.
Walstrom Aff. ¶ 29, Ex. F. In an effort to avoid conflict, Garry and Bonnie agreed to modify
Page 3 of 9
81-CV-23-104
Filed in District Court
State of Minnesota
3/30/2023 8:56 AM
their lease and that Garry would pay rent in the amount of $208.00 per acre for crop year
2023. Walstrom Aff. ¶ 31. Requiring the Trust’s Farmland be rented to anyone but Garry
would require the Trustee breach the existing agreement. Walstrom Aff. Ex. F. Further,
looking at 2021 cropland rental rates provided by the University of Minnesota Extension,
while the average rental rate was $223.00 per acre, the rental rates for those in the 10th
percentile was $133.00 per acre and $268.00 per acre for the 90th percentile. Walstrom Aff.
¶ 35, Exhibit G. The Trust farmland was formerly swampland, and while Garry has done
much work to improve its value, it is likely still below average farmland for rental rate
purposes. Id. The Trust farmland most definitely would not even come close to getting a
rental rate in the 90th percentile. Id. Therefore, breaching the agreement and seeking
another tenant for this farmland does not justify challenging the status quo.
The status quo for the last 23 years has been Bonnie maintaining the Trust, renting
the Trust farmland to Garry, and Garry farming the land. Granting a temporary injunction
ordering the Trust farmland be rented at market level for the upcoming crop season would
not preserve the status quo. Furthermore, appointing Steven Roehrs as successor Trustee
would further disrupt the status quo because, as evidenced by his actions, he would not be
acting with all of the beneficiaries’ best interests in mind and is heavily influenced by
Michael. Walstrom Aff. ¶ 44. This factor favors denial of the injunction.
II. The Trust Will Be Irreparably Harmed if the Injunction is Issued
In balancing the harms, a court must take into account the harm to be suffered by the
moving party if the temporary injunction is denied as compared to that inflicted on the non-
moving party if the injunction is issued. Yager v. Thompson, 352 N.W.2d 71, 74 (Minn. Ct.
App. 1984). Here, there is no harm to Michael. If the court does not enter the injunction,
Michael will remain a beneficiary, the farmland will be rented and farmed by a capable
farmer, and the Trust will receive the rent pursuant to the lease agreement. Further, if
Bonnie remains the Trustee, there is no harm to Michael. Again, he remains a beneficiary,
benefiting from the lease agreement the Trustee has entered with Garry Walstrom. Whereas,
if the temporary injunction is issued, the potential harm inflicted upon the Trust is great. If
the land were rented to Michael, he lives in Texas. Walstrom Aff. ¶ 38. He has no equipment
to farm the land, which means the land would sit fallow for the 2023 crop year. Id. This would
be potentially devastating to the land, as weeds and other noxious plants would take root. Id.
Further, there is a substantial risk of topsoil loss, as well as deterioration of the ditches and
Page 4 of 9
81-CV-23-104
Filed in District Court
State of Minnesota
3/30/2023 8:56 AM
tile, which need to be maintained. Id. These same risks apply if the court requires the land
be opened up to competitive bids because at this late in the season, it would be difficult to
find a proper tenant to rent the farmland. Garry Walstrom has stewarded the farmland for
more than twenty-two years and continues to use best farm practices to protect the land.
Michael asserts that he himself has sufficient farming equipment that he could bring up from
Texas, but in the same breath says that he could also choose to contract the farming out at a
net profit. Walstrom Aff. ¶ 39. This would not honor Ronald Roehr’s wish for Garry to be able
to farm the land. Id. The facts support a finding that substantial harm will result to the Trust
if the injunction is granted.
III. Petitioner Not Likely to Succeed on the Merits
In deciding whether an injunction is warranted, the court must determine whether
the moving party has shown that it is likely to prevail on the merits. Yager, 352 N.W.2d at,
75. It is unlikely Michael will prevail on the merits. The evidence shows that the actions of
Bonnie were, and have always been, entirely proper. As is stated in Bonnie’s objection, Garry
Walstrom has rented the Trust land since 2000. Walstrom Aff. ¶ 27. The rental rate has been
$110.00 per acre ($11,880.00 per year) since then. Id. This rate was established by Ronald
Roehr and has been honored by Bonnie ever since. Id. All of the Trust beneficiaries, including
Michael, were aware of a set land rental rate between Ronald Roehr, Bonnie, and Garry
Walstrom and could make inquiries as to the exact amount Garry was paying in rent
whenever they pleased. Walstrom Aff. ¶ 28. The rate was not hidden from any beneficiary,
and there was no inquiry or objection raised until Michael’s meltdown this past year. Id. On
December 20, 2022, for the first time in writing and through counsel, Michael and Steven
requested Bonnie provide information regarding her administration of the Trust. Walstrom
Aff. ¶ 22, Ex. E. On February 9, 2022, Bonnie provided a preliminary accounting of the Trust
to Michael. Aff. ¶ 23, Michael’s Exhibit E. Despite receiving verification that no one was
receiving payments from the Trust, Michael continues to make these allegations. Walstrom
Aff. ¶ 24. Further, as noted above, Bonnie and Garry Walstrom agreed to modify the farmland
lease to a rental rate of $208.00 per acre for the 2023 crop year. Walstrom Aff. ¶ 31. This
modification did not appease Michael, who on March 2, 2023, filed an Amended Petition,
wherein he asserted the farmland should be rented for a “market rate of at least $300.00 per
acre.” Walstrom Aff. ¶ 32, See Amended Petition. As discussed supra, according to the
Page 5 of 9
81-CV-23-104
Filed in District Court
State of Minnesota
3/30/2023 8:56 AM
University of Minnesota Extension, in 2021, the average rental rate was $223.00 per acre,
and the rental rates for those in the 10th percentile was $133.00 per acre and $268.00 per
acre for the 90th percentile. Walstrom Aff. ¶ 35, Exhibit G. The Trust farmland most
definitely would not even come close to getting a rental rate in the 90th percentile. Id.
Furthermore, not one of the South-Central counties, Waseca County included, has had an
average rental rate as high as $300.00 per acre in the last five years according to the Cropland
Rental Rates prepared by the University of Minnesota. Walstrom Aff. ¶ 34, Ex. G. Although
the rate for Waseca County was not provided, of the South-Central counties that were, the
highest USDA 2022 estimate was $265.00 per acre. Walstrom Aff. ¶ 35, Ex. G. The Trust
beneficiaries, (apart from Steven and Michael) support the current farmland lease and the
Trustee.
Michael asserts the evidence of a documented Power of Attorney and his denied access
to Bonnie is evidence of undue influence over the Trustee by Sandra Walstrom. Bonnie signed
a power of attorney at the advice of her counsel, as an estate planning tool. Walstrom Aff. ¶
10. A durable power of attorney can be helpful to avoid a conservatorship if a person becomes
incapable of managing their affairs. Id. Other than sending an email as discussed herein,
Bonnie has not required either of her listed attorneys-in-fact to act or perform any duties on
her behalf. Walstrom Aff. ¶ 11. As to the denied access to Bonnie, this was done for the
protection of Bonnie from Michael and Steven, not to limit access to information they as
beneficiaries would be entitled to regarding the Trust. On December 10, 2022, during Michael
and Steven’s visit to Minnesota, they planned to visit Bonnie the following day. Walstrom
Aff. ¶ 19. Bonnie was in such fear of Michael and Steven trying to overpower her, that she
developed hives and had to be taken to the emergency room that evening. Id. Then, on
December 14, 2022, Bonnie asked Sandra to send an email to Michael and Steven on her
behalf, informing them that her preference moving forward was for any communication
regarding the Trust and any information requests regarding the same, to occur via US Mail.
Walstrom Aff. ¶ 21, Michael’s Exhibit E. As the evidence shows, it is unlikely Michael will
prevail on the merits of his claims and this factor weighs in favor of denying the injunction.
IV. Public Policy Supports Denial
In examining whether an injunction is proper, courts must next examine whether any
aspects of the facts require consideration of public policy as expressed in statutes. Kremers v.
Dahl, No. A13-0367, 2014 WL 273966, at *10 (Minn. Ct. App. Jan. 21, 2014) (citing Dahlberg
Page 6 of 9
81-CV-23-104
Filed in District Court
State of Minnesota
3/30/2023 8:56 AM
Bros., Inc. v. Ford Motor Co., 272 Minn. 264, 274–75, 137 N.W.2d 314, 321–22 (1965)).
“Public policy favors upholding valid contracts.” Id. (citing Medtronic, Inc. v. Advanced
Bionics Corp., 630 N.W.2d 438, 451 (Minn.App.2001)). Garry Walstrom entered into a written
lease with Bonnie, as Trustee, for the 2023 crop year. Walstrom Aff. ¶ 29. Garry tilled the
land in the fall, purchased inputs, and obtained crop insurance in reliance on the lease. Id.
Requiring the Trust cancel, and therefore breach, the lease with Garry Walstrom would also
have great impacts on Garry Walstrom, as a farmer who has invested significantly in
improving the Trust farmland for decades and preparing the farmland for crop year 2023.
Therefore, public policy would favor upholding the valid contract between Garry and the
Trust.
Michael urges the court to grant an injunction here arguing an injunction will uphold
public policy of having a trust administered consistent with the applicable law and the trust
language. Michael cites to Minn. Stat. § 501C.0801 which requires the trustee administer the
trust in good faith, in accordance with its terms and purposes and the interests of the
beneficiaries. Other than Michael’s unsubstantiated allegations and theoretical violations of
the Trust, there is no evidence to show that Bonnie has not been administering the Trust in
good faith. Walstrom Aff. ¶ 24. Further, the Minnesota Trust Code grants certain powers to
trustees and issuing an injunction in this instance would go against the public’s interest in
allowing trustees to administer trusts and exercise certain powers without need of
intervention by the court. See generally, Minn. Stat. § 501C.0815 and Minn. Stat. §
501C.0816. Petitioner cannot demonstrate that public policy favors injunctive relief.
V. High Burden on the Court to Enforce Injunctive Relief
Finally, the Court must consider the administrative burdens a temporary injunction
may impose upon the Court. Dahlberg Bros. v. Ford Motor Co., 272 Minn. 264, 275, 137
N.W.2d 314, 322 (1965). Michael argues the injunctive relief requested will require minimal
court interaction. This is very unlikely. Michael has a history of litigious action against family
when he does not get what he wants. Walstrom Aff. ¶ 7. Michael has proposed the Court
prohibit the Trustee from renting the farmland for the crop year 2023-24 except under one of
the following conditions: (a) at fair market value as determined by open, competitive bids; (b)
an amount approved by the written consent of all qualified beneficiaries; or (c) upon an order
from this Court, pending resolution of this Petition. The likelihood of success in finding a
proper tenant by way of opening the farmland up to bids is low. Most farmers have already
Page 7 of 9
81-CV-23-104
Filed in District Court
State of Minnesota
3/30/2023 8:56 AM
purchased inputs for the land they intend to farm in 2023. Any farmer willing to farm new
land (less than a month from planting season) will require a significant discount in rents.
In light of Michael’s litigious history, it would be unlikely that he, or Steven for that
matter, would agree with any proposals his siblings might put forth regarding renting the
farmland. This would require the continued intervention of the court until final adjudication
of this case on the merits.
Finally, Michael suggests the farmland be rented for the crop year 2023-24 by a court
order, pending the resolution of this Petition. In order for the court to issue an order to rent
the land they would have to invalidate the contract between the Trustee and Garry (without
an evidentiary hearing) and receive evidence and testimony regarding the fair market rent
for the particular land involved in this matter.
Moreover, issuing the removal of Bonnie as Trustee with replacement by Steven
Roehrs is not supported by the beneficiaries and would also likely result in the need of further
court intervention. Steven would not be acting with all of the beneficiaries’ best interests in
mind, as he is heavily influenced by Michael. Walstrom Aff. ¶ 44. Granting injunction in this
case will burden the court with continuous motions being filed by Petitioner when he does
not get what he wants. This final factor favors denying Petitioner’s injunctive relief.
CONCLUSION
Petitioner has not demonstrated that he is entitled to the requested preliminary
injunctive relief and therefore the Court should deny his motion.
MESSICK LAW, PLLC
Dated: March 29, 2022 /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
Page 8 of 9
81-CV-23-104
Filed in District Court
State of Minnesota
3/30/2023 8:56 AM
ATTORNEYS FOR OBJECTOR AND
COUNTER-PETITIONER SANDRA
WALSTROM
Page 9 of 9
Preview
81-CV-23-104 Filed in District Court State of Minnesota 3/30/2023 8:56 AM 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 MEMORANDUM IN OPPOSITION TO PETITIONER’S MOTION FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF The memorandum herein is submitted in support of Sandra Walstrom’s opposition to Michael Roehr’s motion for a temporary injunction. INTRODUCTION Ronald E. Roehrs established a revocable trust on August 9, 1999 (the “Trust”). At that time, Ronald was married to Marvel B. Roehrs (“Bonnie”). Bonnie was Ronald’s second wife. The children of Ronald are Janet Tharp, Rhonda Conrath, Daniel Roehrs, Sandra Walstrom, Michael Roehrs, and Steven Roehrs. The main asset of the Trust is a homestead and adjoining farm, which consists of approximately 108 acres of tillable land. At the time the Trust was created, Ronald was diagnosed with cancer. Ronald wanted to ensure that his wife had a life estate in residence and income from the farm rent. Ronald appointed Bonnie as his successor Trustee and instructed Bonnie to rent the farm to Garry Walstrom (the husband of Sandra Walstrom), and that Garry be charged $110.00 per acre to rent the farm. Sandra Walstrom Affidavit ¶ 25 (hereinafter “Walstrom Aff.”). Garry rented the farm from the Trust each year since 2000, at a rate of $110.00 per acre. Walstrom Aff. ¶ 25. All of Ronald’s children were aware of the rental terms. Walstrom Aff. ¶ 26. Michael has a strained relationship with his siblings (apart from Steven) as well as his mother and Bonnie. Walstrom Aff. ¶ 6. Michael initiated multiple civil suits against his brother Daniel and his mother, which were ultimately not successful. Walstrom Aff. ¶ 7. On or about July 23, 2022, Michael sent a stream of rambling, angry and threatening text messages to his sister Sandra Walstrom. Walstrom Aff. ¶ 5, Ex. A. In his messages, Page 1 of 9 81-CV-23-104 Filed in District Court State of Minnesota 3/30/2023 8:56 AM Michael accused Sandra and Daniel of financial and other wrongdoings. Walstrom Aff., Ex. A. Some of the allegations involved the Trust, while others appeared to rehash old disputes with Daniel. Id. Sandra unsuccessfully attempted to deescalate Michael, who concluded the text stating “I carry a big stick, I suggest you stop fucking with me.” Id. During Michael’s visit to Minnesota toward the end of November 2022, he brought with him a pre-printed letter of resignation for Bonnie to sign. Walstrom Aff. ¶15. Again, in December 2022, Michael and his brother Steven traveled to Minnesota in an attempt to force Bonnie to resign as trustee and move out of her home. Walstrom Aff. ¶ 16. Bonnie refused and was traumatized by Michael and Steven’s attempt to intimidate her. Walstrom Aff. ¶ 19. Michael and Steven were instructed that any future communication with Bonnie needed to be in writing. Walstrom Aff. ¶ 21. On December 20, 2022, Michael and Steven, through their first lawyer, sent a request to Bonnie for her to provide information regarding her administration of the Trust. Walstrom Aff. ¶ 22. Bonnie sent the requested information on February 9, 2022. Walstrom Aff. ¶ 23. The information did not show any untoward behavior, or payments or distributions to anyone. Walstrom Aff. ¶24. In his subsequent correspondence, Michael argued that the average farm rent in Waseca County was $208.00 an acre and demanded that rents be increased. Walstrom Aff. ¶ 30. Garry and Bonnie had already signed a lease for Garry to rent the farmland for 2023. Walstrom Aff. ¶ 29. At Michael’s request, Garry and Bonnie agreed to increase the rent to $208.00 per acre. Walstrom Aff. ¶ 31. Despite no evidence of mismanagement, Michael initiated the above-captioned matter. Walstrom Aff. ¶ 24. Michael alleges that Bonnie is incapacitated, and that Sandra and her siblings (apart from Steven) are somehow financially benefiting from the Trust. Walstrom Aff. ¶ 25, Michael’s Exhibit D. In his latest filing, Michael alleges that Garry is paying his siblings (apart from Steven) money under the table for his rent of the farmland. Id. Michael has cited no evidence to support his allegation. Id. Michael sent a letter dated March 9, 2023 to his siblings. Walstrom Aff. ¶ 33. In his letter, Michael offered to rent the farmland for $400.00 per acre, on the condition that the rent is deposited with the Court. Walstrom Aff. ¶¶ 33 and 37. The Trustee and Michael’s siblings (apart from Steven) rejected Michael’s offer, as a valid lease exists for the 2023 crop Page 2 of 9 81-CV-23-104 Filed in District Court State of Minnesota 3/30/2023 8:56 AM year, and Michael has no means by which to farm the land. Walstrom Aff. ¶¶ 36, 38, and 39. The latter puts the land at risk of going fallow, which could harm its production in future years. It is clear that Michael’s offer to rent the farmland was made solely for the purpose of creating a crisis to which his injunction is his proposed remedy. Walstrom Aff. ¶ 41. The injunction, if granted, will place the farm at risk of sitting idle for the 2023 crop year, with no additional rents being paid to the Trust. AUTHORITY A party seeking an injunction must establish that they are without a legal remedy, and the injunction is necessary to prevent great and irreparable injury. Pac. Equip. & Irr., Inc. v. Toro Co., 519 N.W.2d 911, 914 (Minn. Ct. App. 1994). Courts must apply the following five factors in order to grant a temporary injunction: 1. The nature of the relationship between the parties prior to the dispute. 2. The harm alleged to be suffered if the injunction is denied compared to harm on the enjoined party if the injunction is issued. 3. The likelihood that one party will prevail on the merits. 4. Public policy in state and federal statutes. 5. The burden on the Court in supervising and enforcing the injunction. Id. ANALYSIS I. The Parties Relations Support Denial of Injunction The relationship of the parties at issue in this matter is that of Trustee and beneficiary of the Trust. “A temporary injunction is an extraordinary equitable remedy, and its purpose is to preserve the status quo until adjudication of the case on the merits.” Id. at 915 (citing Miller v. Foley, 317 N.W.2d 710, 712 (Minn.1982)). Garry Walstrom has rented the farmland from the Trust since 2000. Walstrom Aff. ¶ 27. He has rented the farmland for $110.00 per acre pursuant to the agreement that was made prior to the death of Ronald Roehrs. Id. The lease terms, including its price, was known to all parties since its inception. Walstrom Aff. ¶ 28. Most recently, Garry and Bonnie entered into a land rental agreement for crop year 2023. Walstrom Aff. ¶ 29, Ex. F. In an effort to avoid conflict, Garry and Bonnie agreed to modify Page 3 of 9 81-CV-23-104 Filed in District Court State of Minnesota 3/30/2023 8:56 AM their lease and that Garry would pay rent in the amount of $208.00 per acre for crop year 2023. Walstrom Aff. ¶ 31. Requiring the Trust’s Farmland be rented to anyone but Garry would require the Trustee breach the existing agreement. Walstrom Aff. Ex. F. Further, looking at 2021 cropland rental rates provided by the University of Minnesota Extension, while the average rental rate was $223.00 per acre, the rental rates for those in the 10th percentile was $133.00 per acre and $268.00 per acre for the 90th percentile. Walstrom Aff. ¶ 35, Exhibit G. The Trust farmland was formerly swampland, and while Garry has done much work to improve its value, it is likely still below average farmland for rental rate purposes. Id. The Trust farmland most definitely would not even come close to getting a rental rate in the 90th percentile. Id. Therefore, breaching the agreement and seeking another tenant for this farmland does not justify challenging the status quo. The status quo for the last 23 years has been Bonnie maintaining the Trust, renting the Trust farmland to Garry, and Garry farming the land. Granting a temporary injunction ordering the Trust farmland be rented at market level for the upcoming crop season would not preserve the status quo. Furthermore, appointing Steven Roehrs as successor Trustee would further disrupt the status quo because, as evidenced by his actions, he would not be acting with all of the beneficiaries’ best interests in mind and is heavily influenced by Michael. Walstrom Aff. ¶ 44. This factor favors denial of the injunction. II. The Trust Will Be Irreparably Harmed if the Injunction is Issued In balancing the harms, a court must take into account the harm to be suffered by the moving party if the temporary injunction is denied as compared to that inflicted on the non- moving party if the injunction is issued. Yager v. Thompson, 352 N.W.2d 71, 74 (Minn. Ct. App. 1984). Here, there is no harm to Michael. If the court does not enter the injunction, Michael will remain a beneficiary, the farmland will be rented and farmed by a capable farmer, and the Trust will receive the rent pursuant to the lease agreement. Further, if Bonnie remains the Trustee, there is no harm to Michael. Again, he remains a beneficiary, benefiting from the lease agreement the Trustee has entered with Garry Walstrom. Whereas, if the temporary injunction is issued, the potential harm inflicted upon the Trust is great. If the land were rented to Michael, he lives in Texas. Walstrom Aff. ¶ 38. He has no equipment to farm the land, which means the land would sit fallow for the 2023 crop year. Id. This would be potentially devastating to the land, as weeds and other noxious plants would take root. Id. Further, there is a substantial risk of topsoil loss, as well as deterioration of the ditches and Page 4 of 9 81-CV-23-104 Filed in District Court State of Minnesota 3/30/2023 8:56 AM tile, which need to be maintained. Id. These same risks apply if the court requires the land be opened up to competitive bids because at this late in the season, it would be difficult to find a proper tenant to rent the farmland. Garry Walstrom has stewarded the farmland for more than twenty-two years and continues to use best farm practices to protect the land. Michael asserts that he himself has sufficient farming equipment that he could bring up from Texas, but in the same breath says that he could also choose to contract the farming out at a net profit. Walstrom Aff. ¶ 39. This would not honor Ronald Roehr’s wish for Garry to be able to farm the land. Id. The facts support a finding that substantial harm will result to the Trust if the injunction is granted. III. Petitioner Not Likely to Succeed on the Merits In deciding whether an injunction is warranted, the court must determine whether the moving party has shown that it is likely to prevail on the merits. Yager, 352 N.W.2d at, 75. It is unlikely Michael will prevail on the merits. The evidence shows that the actions of Bonnie were, and have always been, entirely proper. As is stated in Bonnie’s objection, Garry Walstrom has rented the Trust land since 2000. Walstrom Aff. ¶ 27. The rental rate has been $110.00 per acre ($11,880.00 per year) since then. Id. This rate was established by Ronald Roehr and has been honored by Bonnie ever since. Id. All of the Trust beneficiaries, including Michael, were aware of a set land rental rate between Ronald Roehr, Bonnie, and Garry Walstrom and could make inquiries as to the exact amount Garry was paying in rent whenever they pleased. Walstrom Aff. ¶ 28. The rate was not hidden from any beneficiary, and there was no inquiry or objection raised until Michael’s meltdown this past year. Id. On December 20, 2022, for the first time in writing and through counsel, Michael and Steven requested Bonnie provide information regarding her administration of the Trust. Walstrom Aff. ¶ 22, Ex. E. On February 9, 2022, Bonnie provided a preliminary accounting of the Trust to Michael. Aff. ¶ 23, Michael’s Exhibit E. Despite receiving verification that no one was receiving payments from the Trust, Michael continues to make these allegations. Walstrom Aff. ¶ 24. Further, as noted above, Bonnie and Garry Walstrom agreed to modify the farmland lease to a rental rate of $208.00 per acre for the 2023 crop year. Walstrom Aff. ¶ 31. This modification did not appease Michael, who on March 2, 2023, filed an Amended Petition, wherein he asserted the farmland should be rented for a “market rate of at least $300.00 per acre.” Walstrom Aff. ¶ 32, See Amended Petition. As discussed supra, according to the Page 5 of 9 81-CV-23-104 Filed in District Court State of Minnesota 3/30/2023 8:56 AM University of Minnesota Extension, in 2021, the average rental rate was $223.00 per acre, and the rental rates for those in the 10th percentile was $133.00 per acre and $268.00 per acre for the 90th percentile. Walstrom Aff. ¶ 35, Exhibit G. The Trust farmland most definitely would not even come close to getting a rental rate in the 90th percentile. Id. Furthermore, not one of the South-Central counties, Waseca County included, has had an average rental rate as high as $300.00 per acre in the last five years according to the Cropland Rental Rates prepared by the University of Minnesota. Walstrom Aff. ¶ 34, Ex. G. Although the rate for Waseca County was not provided, of the South-Central counties that were, the highest USDA 2022 estimate was $265.00 per acre. Walstrom Aff. ¶ 35, Ex. G. The Trust beneficiaries, (apart from Steven and Michael) support the current farmland lease and the Trustee. Michael asserts the evidence of a documented Power of Attorney and his denied access to Bonnie is evidence of undue influence over the Trustee by Sandra Walstrom. Bonnie signed a power of attorney at the advice of her counsel, as an estate planning tool. Walstrom Aff. ¶ 10. A durable power of attorney can be helpful to avoid a conservatorship if a person becomes incapable of managing their affairs. Id. Other than sending an email as discussed herein, Bonnie has not required either of her listed attorneys-in-fact to act or perform any duties on her behalf. Walstrom Aff. ¶ 11. As to the denied access to Bonnie, this was done for the protection of Bonnie from Michael and Steven, not to limit access to information they as beneficiaries would be entitled to regarding the Trust. On December 10, 2022, during Michael and Steven’s visit to Minnesota, they planned to visit Bonnie the following day. Walstrom Aff. ¶ 19. Bonnie was in such fear of Michael and Steven trying to overpower her, that she developed hives and had to be taken to the emergency room that evening. Id. Then, on December 14, 2022, Bonnie asked Sandra to send an email to Michael and Steven on her behalf, informing them that her preference moving forward was for any communication regarding the Trust and any information requests regarding the same, to occur via US Mail. Walstrom Aff. ¶ 21, Michael’s Exhibit E. As the evidence shows, it is unlikely Michael will prevail on the merits of his claims and this factor weighs in favor of denying the injunction. IV. Public Policy Supports Denial In examining whether an injunction is proper, courts must next examine whether any aspects of the facts require consideration of public policy as expressed in statutes. Kremers v. Dahl, No. A13-0367, 2014 WL 273966, at *10 (Minn. Ct. App. Jan. 21, 2014) (citing Dahlberg Page 6 of 9 81-CV-23-104 Filed in District Court State of Minnesota 3/30/2023 8:56 AM Bros., Inc. v. Ford Motor Co., 272 Minn. 264, 274–75, 137 N.W.2d 314, 321–22 (1965)). “Public policy favors upholding valid contracts.” Id. (citing Medtronic, Inc. v. Advanced Bionics Corp., 630 N.W.2d 438, 451 (Minn.App.2001)). Garry Walstrom entered into a written lease with Bonnie, as Trustee, for the 2023 crop year. Walstrom Aff. ¶ 29. Garry tilled the land in the fall, purchased inputs, and obtained crop insurance in reliance on the lease. Id. Requiring the Trust cancel, and therefore breach, the lease with Garry Walstrom would also have great impacts on Garry Walstrom, as a farmer who has invested significantly in improving the Trust farmland for decades and preparing the farmland for crop year 2023. Therefore, public policy would favor upholding the valid contract between Garry and the Trust. Michael urges the court to grant an injunction here arguing an injunction will uphold public policy of having a trust administered consistent with the applicable law and the trust language. Michael cites to Minn. Stat. § 501C.0801 which requires the trustee administer the trust in good faith, in accordance with its terms and purposes and the interests of the beneficiaries. Other than Michael’s unsubstantiated allegations and theoretical violations of the Trust, there is no evidence to show that Bonnie has not been administering the Trust in good faith. Walstrom Aff. ¶ 24. Further, the Minnesota Trust Code grants certain powers to trustees and issuing an injunction in this instance would go against the public’s interest in allowing trustees to administer trusts and exercise certain powers without need of intervention by the court. See generally, Minn. Stat. § 501C.0815 and Minn. Stat. § 501C.0816. Petitioner cannot demonstrate that public policy favors injunctive relief. V. High Burden on the Court to Enforce Injunctive Relief Finally, the Court must consider the administrative burdens a temporary injunction may impose upon the Court. Dahlberg Bros. v. Ford Motor Co., 272 Minn. 264, 275, 137 N.W.2d 314, 322 (1965). Michael argues the injunctive relief requested will require minimal court interaction. This is very unlikely. Michael has a history of litigious action against family when he does not get what he wants. Walstrom Aff. ¶ 7. Michael has proposed the Court prohibit the Trustee from renting the farmland for the crop year 2023-24 except under one of the following conditions: (a) at fair market value as determined by open, competitive bids; (b) an amount approved by the written consent of all qualified beneficiaries; or (c) upon an order from this Court, pending resolution of this Petition. The likelihood of success in finding a proper tenant by way of opening the farmland up to bids is low. Most farmers have already Page 7 of 9 81-CV-23-104 Filed in District Court State of Minnesota 3/30/2023 8:56 AM purchased inputs for the land they intend to farm in 2023. Any farmer willing to farm new land (less than a month from planting season) will require a significant discount in rents. In light of Michael’s litigious history, it would be unlikely that he, or Steven for that matter, would agree with any proposals his siblings might put forth regarding renting the farmland. This would require the continued intervention of the court until final adjudication of this case on the merits. Finally, Michael suggests the farmland be rented for the crop year 2023-24 by a court order, pending the resolution of this Petition. In order for the court to issue an order to rent the land they would have to invalidate the contract between the Trustee and Garry (without an evidentiary hearing) and receive evidence and testimony regarding the fair market rent for the particular land involved in this matter. Moreover, issuing the removal of Bonnie as Trustee with replacement by Steven Roehrs is not supported by the beneficiaries and would also likely result in the need of further court intervention. Steven would not be acting with all of the beneficiaries’ best interests in mind, as he is heavily influenced by Michael. Walstrom Aff. ¶ 44. Granting injunction in this case will burden the court with continuous motions being filed by Petitioner when he does not get what he wants. This final factor favors denying Petitioner’s injunctive relief. CONCLUSION Petitioner has not demonstrated that he is entitled to the requested preliminary injunctive relief and therefore the Court should deny his motion. MESSICK LAW, PLLC Dated: March 29, 2022 /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 Page 8 of 9 81-CV-23-104 Filed in District Court State of Minnesota 3/30/2023 8:56 AM ATTORNEYS FOR OBJECTOR AND COUNTER-PETITIONER SANDRA WALSTROM Page 9 of 9