Preview
81-CV-23-104
Filed in District Court
State of Minnesota
3/22/2023 5:25 PM
STATE OF MINNESOTA IN DISTRICT COURT
COUNTY OF WASECA THIRD JUDICIAL DISTRICT
In the Matter of the Ronald E. Roehrs Case Type: Trust
Trust dated August 9, 1999. Court File No. 81-CV-23-104
Judge Carol M. Hanks
MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN SUPPORT
OF MICHAEL ROEHRS’ MOTION FOR
A PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION
INTRODUCTION
Petitioner Michael Roehrs (or “Petitioner”) moves the Court for preliminary injunctive relief
in this matter because there are time-sensitive issues that will cause substantial, irreparable harm if
they are not addressed on an expedited basis.
First, there is substantial evidence that the current trustee for the trust at issue is
incapacitated and that other, unauthorized persons have hijacked the trust and are obtaining benefits
or pocketing money from the trust to which they are not entitled to the detriment of other
beneficiaries. Michael Roehrs thus asks to the Court to grant preliminary injunctive relief removing
the current trustee and appointing on a temporary basis Steven Roehrs, the successor trustee who
had been expressly designated by the grantor under the controlling trust documents, to ensure that
the trust is being properly managed during the pendency of this litigation.
Second, the principal asset of the trust is farmland that has been preferentially rented to one
of the six beneficiaries for years at rates substantially below market levels and the trustee has just
rejected a fair market offer to rent the farmland at nearly four times the amount that the favored
beneficiary has been paying for the farmland. There is extreme time pressure concerning the rental
of the farmland for the upcoming growing season. Michael Roehrs is thus seeking preliminary
81-CV-23-104
Filed in District Court
State of Minnesota
3/22/2023 5:25 PM
injunctive relief from the Court ordering that the farmland be rented out for the upcoming season at
a fair market level so that the trust is able to properly maximize the value of its assets, rather than to
continue its rental at rates which impermissibly favor the beneficiary renting the farmland while
irreparably harming the trust and all of the other beneficiaries.
STATEMENT OF FACTS
I. The Trust.
This dispute involves the improper administration of a trust created by Ronald E. Roehrs
(“Ronald Roehrs”), the father of Petitioner Michael Roehrs and Petitioner’s five siblings, Janet
Tharp, Rhonda Conrath, Daniel Roehrs, Sandra Walstrom, and Steven Roehrs. On August 9, 1999,
Ronald Roehrs executed a Trust Declaration (the “Declaration”), naming himself as the initial
Trustee. On September 13, 1999, Ronald Roehrs executed the First Amendment to the Declaration
(the “Amendment”). See Affidavit of Michael Roehrs dated 3/21/23 (“M. Roehrs Aff.”) Ex. A
(Declaration and Amendment) (collectively the “Trust Agreement”).
The original Declaration established a life estate in the 118.8 acres of farmland owned by
the Trust in favor of Ronald E. Roehr’s wife, Marvel B. Roehrs (“Marvel Roehrs” or “Trustee”),
with the remainder interest in favor of Ronald Roehrs’ six biological children. Marvel Roehrs is the
stepmother of the six children.
The Amendment to the Declaration revoked the life estate in Marvel Roehrs’ favor and
provided that the Trust would continue to hold the farmland instead on the following terms:
l) If my wife, Marvel B. Roehrs, shall survive me, she shall have the right to
occupy our residence at 13903 275th Ave., New Richland, Minnesota for so long as
she wishes to occupy it as her principal residence. This shall include the house and
acreage occupied as the building site. The trust farmland rent shall be made available
to her during such period to pay real estate taxes, insurance, maintenance and
necessary improvement costs.
2
81-CV-23-104
Filed in District Court
State of Minnesota
3/22/2023 5:25 PM
2) Upon the death of Marvel B. Roehrs or at such time as she elects to no
longer reside in said residence, the Trustee shall distribute said building site and trust
farmland to the six children of Ronald E. Roehrs as named in this trust.
M. Roehrs Aff. Ex. A. The Amendment did not change any other terms of the Declaration. See id.
The Trust Agreement did not contain any terms that would either justify or require the
favoring of any one or more of the six children beneficiaries over any one or more of the other
children beneficiaries. Rather, the Trust Agreement made clear that all of the children were to take
“equal share.” See, e.g., M. Roehrs Aff. Ex. A (Declaration ¶V.A.2)) (providing that the six
children beneficiaries are “Remaindermen in equal share”).
The Declaration further provided in clear terms that one of the children, Steven Roehrs, was
to be the successor Trustee:
Death or Disability of the Grantor as Trustee. If at any time the Grantor has a
disability (as previously defined), or upon the death of the Grantor, Marvel B.
Roehrs, is designated as the successor Trustee. Such designee shall become the
successor Trustee upon acceptance of the terms and conditions of this Trust. If the
successor Trustee is unable or unwilling to serve, Steven Roehrs is designated as
alternate successor Trustee.
Id. Ex. A (Declaration ¶VII.B) (emphasis in original).
II. Marvel Roehrs Becomes Trustee and Evidence Reveals She Is Now Incapacitated.
Ronald E. Roehrs died on December 19, 2000, at which time the Trust became irrevocable.
Upon her husband’s death, Marvel Roehrs assumed the role of the initial successor Trustee pursuant
to Paragraph VII.B of the Trust Agreement quoted above, id; and she remains the Trustee today.
Marvel Roehrs is eighty-eight years old. M. Roehrs Aff. ¶11. There is now substantial
evidence that she has become unfit or unable to continue as Trustee and that others have taken
3
81-CV-23-104
Filed in District Court
State of Minnesota
3/22/2023 5:25 PM
advantage of her incapacity and hijacked control of the Trust. 1 Toward the end of last year,
Petitioner had become increasingly concerned about his stepmother after realizing that her
telephone had been disconnected. Id. ¶12.
Petitioner left his home in Texas and drove to visit Marvel Roehrs at the family home on the
farm on November 28, 2022. Id.
While Petitioner was at the family home, Marvel Roehrs’ brother-in-law told Petitioner that
Marvel Roehrs’ telephone had been disconnected because she had become vulnerable to the
suggestions and will of others and had also been a victim of telephone scams. M. Roehrs Aff. ¶13.
Petitioner returned to Minnesota on December 10, 2022, this time joined by his brother,
Steven Roehrs, hoping to visit their stepmother to gauge how she was doing. M. Roehrs Aff. ¶14.
Ervin Abraham (“Abraham”), Marvel Roehrs’ biological son, directed them to meet with Abraham
for lunch the next day, December 11th, whereupon Abraham told them that they were not permitted
to go to the family home or to visit his mother, Marvel Roehrs, and informed them that Marvel
Roehrs had been secreted somewhere and that she would remain in hiding until Michael and Steven
Roehrs left Minnesota. M. Roehrs Aff. ¶¶ 16-17.
Abraham told Petitioner during that meeting that Marvel Roehrs is now suffering from a
form of hereditary dementia and that Abraham had obtained a power-of-attorney over his mother.
M. Roehrs Aff. ¶20. 2
1
Although the Trustee denies these and other similar assertions, see generally 3/21/23 Trustee’s
Objection and Counter-petition Michael Roehrs Amended Petition (“Trustee Obj.”), there is
substantial evidence to the contrary as well of evidence of indue influence. See infra.
2
Petitioner later learned that his sister, Sandra Walstrom, was also an attorney-in-fact pursuant to
that power of attorney. See M. Roehrs Aff. ¶21 & Ex. B (Power of Attorney).
4
81-CV-23-104
Filed in District Court
State of Minnesota
3/22/2023 5:25 PM
During that same meeting, Abraham informed Petitioner that Abraham had taken over one
or more of the barn structures on the Trust property for storing Abraham’s own vehicles and
equipment, without compensating the Trust for his personal use. M. Roehrs Aff. ¶24.
In addition, Abraham implied that he had control of the Trust checkbook. Id. ¶18. Abraham
then refused Petitioner’s legitimate request, as a beneficiary of the Trust, to review the Trust
checkbook. Id. As a stranger to the Trust, Abraham’s control of the Trust checkbook is
unjustifiable, and yet another indication of the Trustee’s incapacity and inability to discharge her
duties as Trustee.
Two days before meeting with Petitioner for lunch, Abraham also went to the Waseca
County Sheriff’s Office and made an unwarranted complaint about Petitioner’s November visit to
the family home. M. Roehrs Aff. Ex. C (1/6/23 sheriff’s incident report). The resulting sheriff’s
incident report confirmed that: “[t]here are some concerns with memory issues involving Bonnie
[Marvel Roehrs] and mentioning of the complainant Ervin being power of attorney.” Id.
The sheriff’s incident report also reveals to what lengths Abraham is willing to go to prevent
Petitioner from seeing Marvel Roehrs. The sheriff’s incident report indicated that Abraham had
“inquired about criminal charges if the step-son Michael showed up again.” Id. The report further
indicated that a “restraining order and no trespass order were also mentioned.” Id.
Abraham’s refusal to allow Petitioner to visit Marvel Roehrs, Abraham’s unfounded
complaint to the sheriff, and Abraham’s control of the Trust checkbook clearly demonstrate that
Abraham is denying Petitioner access to both the Trustee (thereby hiding from Petitioner her
incapacity) as well as access to Trust financial records and other information about the Trust,
documentation to which Petitioner is statutorily entitled as a beneficiary. Id. ¶22.
5
81-CV-23-104
Filed in District Court
State of Minnesota
3/22/2023 5:25 PM
III. There Is Additional Evidence that Abraham, and Walstrom, Have Hijacked Control of
the Trust.
Abraham and Sandra Walstrom (“Walstrom”), one of Petitioner’s sisters, have also obtained
a power of attorney, dated March 5, 2021, over Marvel Roehrs. M. Roehrs Aff. Ex. B (“Power of
Attorney”). That Power of Attorney grants to them the broadest powers available under the
Minnesota Statutory Short Form and provides Walstrom and Abraham with “all of the power listed
… and all other matters other than health care decisions.” Id. at p.2.
As a result, Walstrom and Abraham now control, inter alia, all of Marvel Roehrs’ personal
finances, banking transactions, insurance transactions, family maintenance, records, fiduciary
transactions, beneficiary transactions, and other affairs under the terms of the Power of Attorney.
Id.
Walstrom and Abraham are, however, also controlling all matters related to the Trust and its
assets, serving as the de facto trustees of the Trust by taking advantage of Marvel Roehrs’
incapacity and abusing the control that Walstrom and Abraham wrested as attorneys-in-fact
pursuant to Marvel Roehrs’ personal Power of Attorney. M. Roehrs Aff. ¶23.
Walstrom and Abraham’s intent to hijack control over all matters related to the Trust, as
well as to keep Petitioner apart from Marvel Roehrs, is further confirmed by an email Walstrom
sent to Petitioner on December 14, 2022. Id. Ex. E (12/14/22 Walstrom email). Walstrom claimed
that Marvel Roehrs “prefers not to have contact with either of you other than in writing by US
mail.” Id. With her December 14, 2022, email to Petitioner, Walstrom also attached the Power of
Attorney, demonstrating that she and Abraham are now relying on that Power of Attorney to hide
6
81-CV-23-104
Filed in District Court
State of Minnesota
3/22/2023 5:25 PM
Marvel Roehrs’ incapacity, maintain their control over the Trust, 3 and block Petitioner’s right to
obtain financial records and other relevant information relating to the Trust property and to his
legitimate interests as a beneficiary of the Trust. See M. Roehrs Aff. ¶¶22, 25-26.
IV. The Trust Has Been Administered to Improperly Favor Walstrom and Perhaps
Others.
Throughout the entire term of the Trust, its major asset has been 118.8 acres of high-quality
farmland located in Waseca County, Minnesota. M. Roehrs Aff. ¶27. The Trustee rented the
Trust’s farmland to Walstrom’s husband for $11,880.00 per year from 2001 through the present. 4
3/3/23 Walstrom Objection and Counterpetition to M. Roehrs’ Petition at p. 1, ¶8 (“Walstrom
Obj.”). Petitioner believes that during this long-term period of below-market rental, the Trustee has
not collected any other revenue from the farmland, but this will not be confirmed until the Trustee is
ordered to comply with her duties to produce the Trust’s complete financial records to Petitioner.
M. Roehrs Aff. ¶27.
For more than twenty years, the Walstroms have been paying $100.00 per acre to rent the Trust’s
farmland, an amount which is substantially below market level. Id. ¶27. To justify this improper
favoritism, Walstrom has alleged that “[w]hile my father was still living, he, my stepmother,
and Garry Walstrom (my husband) agreed my husband would continue to farm and rent the
Farmland at an annual rental rate of $11,880.00 per year.” Walstrom Obj. at p.1, ¶7. The Trustee
also alleges the existence of verbal instructions from Ronald Roehrs that contradict the clear terms
of the Trust Agreement. Trustee Obj. at p. 3, ¶9(a). As discussed more fully infra, allegations
3
Walstrom’s demand that all of Petitioner’s requests or communications must be sent to the Trustee
via U.S. mail sets up yet another barrier between Petitioner and his stepmother, denying him any in-
person access. M. Roehrs Aff. ¶25.
4
Although Walstrom alleges that her husband has been the only one renting the farmland, see
Walstrom Obj. at p. 1, ¶8, the below-market rental rate has clearly enriched Walstrom as well as her
husband. M. Roehrs Aff. ¶28.
7
81-CV-23-104
Filed in District Court
State of Minnesota
3/22/2023 5:25 PM
regarding the existence of some contradictory verbal agreement or instructions do not alter the clear
written terms of the Trust Agreement.
Petitioner’s position that the farmland has been rented for too little money is further
confirmed by Sandra Walstrom’s offer to rent the farmland for the upcoming crop year at a rate of
$208.00 per acre. See Walstrom Obj. at p. 3, ¶9. For crop year 2024, Walstrom has offered to rent
the farmland for $228.00 per acre and for crop year 2025, Walstrom has offered to pay $248.00 per
acre. Walstrom Obj. at pp. 3-4, ¶3(b)-(c).
The amounts now being offered by Walstrom are still below market rate. The farmland
should have been rented for a market rate of at least $300.00 per acre over the years, which means
that Walstrom and her husband have been improperly receiving a discount of about $23,000.00 per
year on the rental. M. Roehrs Aff. ¶29. Thus, the Trust has been suffering lost income of about
$23,000.00 per year. Id.
On March 9, 2023, Petitioner made a written offer to rent the farmland for calendar year
2023 for $400.00 per acre and to pay the entire rent amount on April 15, 2023. M. Roehrs Aff. Ex.
G (3/9/23 rental offer). Petitioner also believes that if the farmland were put out for competitive
bid, it would rent for $400.00 per acre, which is the basis for the amount of his rental offer. M.
Roehrs Aff. ¶30.
On March 20, 2023, however, the attorney for the Trustee sent a letter rejecting Petitioner’s
much higher offer to rent the farmland. M. Roehrs Aff. Ex. H (3/20/23 letter declining Petitioner’s
offer & attached land rental agreement). That letter also forwarded a written lease agreement
between Garry Walstrom and the “Ronald Roehrs Estate C/O Marvel Bonnie Roehrs” for the
farmland dated “12/30/2022.” Id.
This is, however, the first time, to Petitioner’s knowledge, that there has ever been a written
lease agreement for the farmland, suggesting this “lease” is yet another example of Walstrom’s
8
81-CV-23-104
Filed in District Court
State of Minnesota
3/22/2023 5:25 PM
improper control as well as the Trustee’s ongoing and egregious breach of her duties. M. Roehrs
Aff. ¶32.
That written lease is also invalid on its face for several reasons. The lease was not signed by
any party until January 20, 2023, twenty days after the purported beginning of the lease term. Id.
Ex. H (letter and attached lease). Indeed, the written lease was not even executed by Marvel Roehrs
in her capacity as the Trustee. Id.; see also id. ¶32. In addition, the Trust, which owns the
farmland, is not a party to that January 20, 2023 lease; the Estate of Ronald E. Roehrs is merely
recited in the lease as the landlord. Id.; id. Ex. H. The farmland described in the written lease has
never been owned by Ronald E. Roehrs’ Estate. Id. ¶32. Rather, the farmland was conveyed by
Ronald Roehrs and Marvel Roehrs to the Ronald E. Roehrs Trust by Warranty Deed recorded on
August 10, 1999, more than a year before the inception of Ronald Roehrs’ Estate (which occurred
upon Ronald Roehrs’ death on December 19, 2000). Id. ¶32; id. Ex. I (Warranty Deed). Given the
foregoing, the proffered written “lease” is thus not a valid lease of the Trust farmland.
Moreover, this written lease is yet another example of Sandra Walstrom’s improper control
over the Trustee and the Trust as well as the Trustee’s ongoing and serious breach of her duties. M.
Roehrs Aff. ¶32. The fatal flaws on the face of that written lease may, however, explain why it was
not filed with the Court in the context of Sandra Walstrom’s Objection and Counterpetition and why
it was never mentioned in that Objection and Counterpetition. See generally Walstrom Obj. The
Objection and Counterpetition only alleged Walstrom’s husband had entered into a lease of the
farmland for the “2023 crop year,” with no exact date and no reference to this new written “lease.”
Id. at p.3, ¶6. Walstrom’s omission of any mention of a written lease of the Trust farmland raises
serious questions about that lease’s validity.
The refusal letter from Trustee’s counsel also claimed that the Trustee had to deny
Petitioner’s rental offer because he has no equipment in Minnesota and that as a result, there is a
9
81-CV-23-104
Filed in District Court
State of Minnesota
3/22/2023 5:25 PM
risk the farmland will remain fallow for the 2023 crop year. M. Roehrs Aff. Ex. H (letter).
Petitioner, however, owns five tractors, more than a dozen farming implements and a semi-tractor
trailer capable of transporting Petitioner’s farming equipment from Texas to Minnesota. M. Roehrs
Aff. ¶34.
Moreover, between January 2007 and February 2019, Petitioner owned and operated large
capacity grain storage facilities and farmed 155 acres of farmland in Jackson County and Martin
County, Minnesota. Id. ¶36. Since January 2008 to the present, Petitioner has also owned and
farmed 150 acres of farmland in Cooke County, Texas. Id. ¶36. If Petitioner were to choose to not
farm the land himself, he has the capacity to contract the farming out at a net profit. Id. ¶35.
The Walstroms, on the other hand, have no farm equipment at all and Petitioner believes that
as a result, the Walstroms must contract much of the farming out. Id. This excuse thus does not
justify the Trustee’s denial of Petitioner’s clearly superior rental offer.
Renting the farmland to one of the beneficiaries for substantially less than market value has
not only improperly dissipated the value of the corpus of the Trust, but it has also inappropriately
favored one of the Trust’s beneficiaries over the other beneficiaries.
In addition, Petitioner’s review of the limited Trust financial records he has been given
suggests that both Walstrom and Abraham have been receiving financial benefits from the Trust via
the Power of Attorney they have obtained over Marvel Roehrs’ personal affairs. M. Roehrs Aff.
¶40. This is another example of impermissible favoritism towards one beneficiary (and a stranger
to the Trust) as well as the improper administration of Trust assets in violation of the Trustee’s
duties, and contrary to the clear terms of the Trust Agreement. Id. ¶40.
10
81-CV-23-104
Filed in District Court
State of Minnesota
3/22/2023 5:25 PM
V. Petitioner Has Been Improperly Denied Access to the Trust’s Financial Records.
Marvel Roehrs has failed to provide the annual accounting required by the Trust pursuant to
Paragraph VII.B, during the entire period of her trusteeship, that is, from December 19, 2000, to
March 1, 2023. Id. ¶37.
On February 8, 2023, Petitioner made a written request for an accounting on the Trust. Id.
On February 9, 2023, in response to Petitioner’s request, he received a limited accounting for the
Trust (which is labelled the “Preliminary Accounting”), but it only addressed the years 2017-2022.
Id. Ex. 38. Petitioner did not, however, receive any documentation in support of that Preliminary
Accounting or a final accounting for that or any other period. M. Roehrs Aff. ¶38.
The Preliminary Accounting is the only financial information that has been provided to
Petitioner for the entire period from December 19, 2000, to the present. Id. ¶39. Petitioner still has
not ever received any financial records for the Trust covering the period from December 19, 2000,
through 2016. Id. ¶39.
The Preliminary Accounting reveals another issue related to the Trustee’s improper Trust
administration. Paragraph V.A.1) of the Trust Agreement, as amended, provides that the Trust
assets may only be used to pay for “real estate taxes, insurance, maintenance and necessary
improvement costs” for the farmland. M. Roehrs Aff. Ex. A. The Preliminary Accounting
indicates, however, that in the period from 2017-2022, the Trustee used Trust assets to pay for items
that are unrelated to real estate taxes, insurance, maintenance, and necessary improvement costs,
including, for example, jewelry, food, and various withdrawals labelled “cash;” the use of the cash
withdrawals was never identified in the Preliminary Accounting. M. Roehrs Aff. Ex. D.
11
81-CV-23-104
Filed in District Court
State of Minnesota
3/22/2023 5:25 PM
ARGUMENT
I. Standard.
The Minnesota Trust Code grants a court broad equitable powers in trust cases involving, for
example, a request to remove a trustee for breach of a duty. Minn. Stat. § 501C.0706(c) specifically
provides that:
Pending a final decision on a petition to remove a trustee, or in lieu of or in
addition to removing a trustee, the court may order such appropriate relief under
section 501C.1001, paragraph (b), as may be necessary to protect the trust
property or the interests of the beneficiaries.
Id. (citing Minn. Stat. § 501C.1001(b)). Section 501C.1001(b), the provision cited therein, in turn
permits the grant of injunctive relief for purposes of, inter alia: (i) “enjoin[ing] the trustee from
committing a breach of trust,” Minn. Stat. § 501C.1001(b)(2); (ii) “order[ing] a trustee to account,”
id. (b)(4); (iii) “suspend[ing] the trustee,” id. (b)(6); or (iv) “order[ing] any other appropriate relief.”
Id. (b)(10).
There appears to be some question as to whether the Court should also consider the
Dahlberg factors when determining whether to grant Petitioner’s request for injunctive relief. In In
re Otto Bremer Trust, A21-0053, 2021 Minn. App. Unpub. LEXIS 716 (Minn. Ct. App. Aug. 30,
2021), the Minnesota Court of Appeals declined to rule whether the consideration of the Dahlberg
factors was a reversible error when determining whether to grant preliminary injunctive relief
because the Court found that the district court had used those factors as a “‘guide’” but had applied
“the statutory standard for interim remedies set forth in section 501.C0706(c).” Id. at *10 n.2. That
statutory standard provides that the “court may order such appropriate relief under section
501C.1001, paragraph (b), as may be necessary to protect the trust property or the interests of the
beneficiaries.” Minn. Stat. § 501C.0706(c); see In re Otto Bremer Trust, 2021 Minn. App. Unpub.
LEXIS 716, at *8-10 (discussing statutory standard).
12
81-CV-23-104
Filed in District Court
State of Minnesota
3/22/2023 5:25 PM
In another case, Sigfrid v. Taylor, the district court applied, without discussion, the Dahlberg
factors when granting a temporary injunction which prohibited, among other things, the transfer of
trust assets and the use of trust assets for personal benefit where the petitioners had alleged that a
beneficiary’s disclaimer of all trust assets had been obtained by undue influence. See Sigfrid, No.
56-CV-20-983, 2020 Minn. Dist. LEXIS 204, at *22-42 (Minn. Dist. Ct. June 2, 2020).
Given the uncertainty regarding the applicability of Dahlberg, this memorandum will
analyze the Dahlberg factors as well as the statutory standard set forth in Minn. Stat. §
501C.1001(b) to support of the Petitioner’s request for the grant of preliminary injunctive relief.
II. The Court Should Grant a Preliminary Injunction Ordering that the Trust’s Farmland
Be Rented at Market Level for the Upcoming Crop Season.
Minn. Stat. § 501C.0901 requires the Trustee to invest and manage trust assets as a prudent
investor would by considering the purposes, terms, distribution requirements, and other
circumstances of the trust. Section 501C.0901 further provides that the Trustee shall exercise
reasonable care, skill, and caution in satisfying this standard. Paragraph VI.C of the Trust
Agreement also requires the Trustee to exercise the judgment and care, under the circumstances
then prevailing, that persons of prudence, discretion, and intelligence would exercise in the
management of their own affairs. M. Roehrs Aff. Ex. A. The Court is specifically empowered to
order the appropriate relief “under section 501C.1001, paragraph (b), as may be necessary to protect
the trust property or the interests of the beneficiaries.” Minn. Stat. § 501C.0706(c).
Here, by renting the farmland to Walstrom and her husband for more than twenty years at
less than market rate, Marvel Roehrs has not properly preserved or protected the Trust property or
the interests of Petitioner as beneficiary of the Trust, by failing to maximize the income that can be
generated by the Trust’s farmland, thereby violating her duties as Trustee by persistently failing to
act as a prudent investor and declining to maximize the assets of the Trust.
13
81-CV-23-104
Filed in District Court
State of Minnesota
3/22/2023 5:25 PM
Renting the farmland to one of the beneficiaries at a rate below market also improperly
favors that beneficiary to the detriment of others. Minn. Stat. § 501C.0803 imposes on a trustee the
duty of impartiality and provides that “[i]f a trust has two or more beneficiaries, the trustee shall
administer the trust impartially, giving due regard to the beneficiaries’ respective interests.” The
Trust Agreement clearly provides that all of the children beneficiaries have an equal share of the
Trust. See, e.g., M. Roehrs Aff. Ex. A (Trust Agreement ¶V.A). The administration of the Trust in
a manner which has favored Walstrom over the other beneficiaries, including the Petitioner, violates
Marvel Roehrs’ duty of impartiality and loyalty as Trustee. Cf. In re Estate of Stuchlik, 857 N.W.2d
57, 71 (Neb. 2014)(construing Nebraska Uniform Trust Code 5 and remanding case for
determination whether co-trustees, the brother and mother of petitioner, had breached their duties of
loyalty and impartiality by allegedly entering “into leases with members of the family that were
below fair market value”)(also citing Restatement (Third) of Trusts § 79 (2007)). 6
It also demonstrates Walstrom’s undue influence over Marvel Roehrs as a result of the
Trustee’s advanced age and impaired mental condition, see supra (discussing same); the continued
rental of the farmland at below market rates to Walstrom; the extremely broad Power of Attorney
obtained in favor of Walstrom and Abraham, see M. Roehrs Aff. Ex. B; and Walstrom’s email
restricting Petitioner’s access and ordering him to communicate with the Trustee solely by U.S.
mail. Id. Ex. E; see Sigfrid, 2020 Minn. Dist. LEXIS 204, at *21-28 (granting temporary injunction
5
The Minnesota Court of Appeals has held that “[w]hen interpreting a uniform law, an appellate
court ‘will consider’ other jurisdictions’ interpretations of their uniform acts.” In re Estate of
Nelson, 936 N.W.2d 897, 906 (Minn. Ct. App. 2019), citing, inter alia, Minn. Stat. § 645.22
(providing that “[l]aws uniform with those of other states shall be interpreted and construed to effect
their general purpose to make uniform the laws of those states which enact them.”).
6
See, e.g., In re Otto Bremer Trust, 2023 Minn. App. LEXIS 4, at *19 n.13 (Minnesota courts look
to the Restatement (Third) of Trusts as authoritative)(citation omitted); In re Revocable Trust
Agreement of Avis v. Cordes, Minn. App. Unpub. LEXIS 730, at *14 (citing Restatement (Third) of
Trusts for definition of trustee’s duty of loyalty).
14
81-CV-23-104
Filed in District Court
State of Minnesota
3/22/2023 5:25 PM
to protect trust assets and finding undue influence based on, inter alia, donor’s age, physical health,
and mental health, including the degree of mental capacity); cf. Gunnells v. Harkness, 847 S.E.2d
97, 101-02 (S.C. Ct. App. 2020)(ruling that restricted access to the donor was one indication of a
son’s exercise of undue influence over his mother when she revised her will); Family Services, Inc.
v. Beebe, 5th Dist. Stark No. 2000CA00176, 2000 Ohio App. LEXIS 5529, at *5-7 (Ohio Ct. App.
Nov. 27, 2000)(ruling that there was a presumption of undue influence where son was a fiduciary as
a result of his father’s power of attorney in son’s favor and after obtaining power of attorney, son
transferred trust assets to his children).
Trying to justify this improper favoritism, Walstrom has alleged that “[w]hile my father
was still living, he, my stepmother, and Garry Walstrom (my husband) agreed my husband
would continue to farm and rent the Farmland at an annual rental rate of $11,880.00 per year.”
Walstrom Obj. at p.1, ¶7. The Trustee similarly alleges that Ronald Roehrs had given a verbal
instruction regarding the favorable rent amount. Trustee Obj. at p. 3, ¶9(a). Minnesota law is clear,
however, that a supposed contrary verbal agreement or conflicting verbal instructions are not
permitted to change the unambiguous terms of a trust agreement. Here, the Trust Agreement
specifies that the beneficiaries are to take equally. See M. Roehrs Aff. Ex. A (Declaration ¶V.A.2)).
The Court should thus reject Walstrom’s allegation about the existence of this verbal “agreement”
as well as the Trustee’s claim about contrary verbal instructions. See, e.g., In re Revocable Trust
Agreement of Avis v. Cordes, A19-1872, 2020 Minn. App. Unpub. LEXIS 730, at *11-12 (Minn. Ct.
App. Aug. 31, 2020)(holding that when “the trust agreement is unambiguous, a court discerns the
grantor’s intent from the language of the trust agreement and does not consider extrinsic
evidence.”)(citation omitted).
The Court should also reject the argument made by the Trustee’s counsel that a written lease
provided for the first time on March 20, 2023 precludes the preliminary injunctive relief Petitioner
15
81-CV-23-104
Filed in District Court
State of Minnesota
3/22/2023 5:25 PM
is requesting for the crop year 2023 because it would force the Trustee to breach a written contract.
See M. Roehrs Aff. Ex. H (letter rejecting Petitioner’s rental offer and attaching written lease
agreement). As set forth more fully, supra, that written lease is invalid on its face for several
reasons. The lease appears to be backdated because it was not signed by any party until January 20,
2023, twenty days after the purported beginning of the lease term, and Marvel Roehrs’ signature on
the lease is invalid because she did not execute it in her capacity as Trustee. Id. Ex. H (letter and
attached lease).
The lease further fails because the Trust, which owns the farmland, is not a party the lease.
Id. The Estate of Ronald E. Roehrs is identified in the lease as the Landlord of the farmland, id.;
but the farmland has never been owned by the Ronald E. Roehrs’ Estate. Id. ¶32. Rather, the
farmland was conveyed by Ronald Roehrs and Marvel Roehrs to the Ronald E. Roehrs Trust by
Warranty Deed recorded on August 10, 1999, more than a year before the inception of Ronald
Roehrs’ Estate (which occurred upon Ronald Roehrs’ death on December 19, 2000). Id. ¶32; id.
Ex. I (Warranty Deed). As a result, the proffered written “lease” is not a valid lease of the Trust
farmland for the crop year 2023 and it does not preclude Petitioner’s requested relief regarding the
rental of the farmland at market level.
Based on the foregoing, Petitioner asks the Court to enjoin the Trustee from continuing to
breach her fiduciary duties as to the rental of the farmland, see Minn. Stat. § 501C.1001(b)(2), and
to issue a preliminary injunction immediately prohibiting 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.
See, e.g., Sigfrid, 2020 Minn. Dist. LEXIS 204, at *32 (when discussing whether movants had
16
81-CV-23-104
Filed in District Court
State of Minnesota
3/22/2023 5:25 PM
shown irreparable harm if the court were to deny entry of a temporary injunction, noting that “trial
courts in this state have also issued injunctions meant to preserve disputed assets in cases”).
The Dahlberg factors also support the issuance of this preliminary injunction. The
Minnesota Court of Appeals, in In re Otto Bremer Trust, summarized those factors as follows:
The Dahlberg analysis is a five-factor test directing courts to consider (1) the parties’
relationships, (2) the relative harm to the parties of granting or denying temporary
relief, (3) the likelihood of success on the merits, (4) public policy, and (5) the
administrative burden in enforcing injunctive relief.
In re Otto Bremer Trust, 2021 Minn. App. Unpub. LEXIS 716, at *7 (citing Dahlberg Bros. v. Ford
Motor Co., 137 N.W.2d 314, 321-22 (Minn. 1965)).
A. Petitioner’s Likelihood of Success on the Merits.
Petitioner has shown there is a likelihood he will succeed on the merits of this dispute
regarding the farmland because, inter alia, there is evidence of undue influence over the Trustee by
Walstrom (and Abraham) as a result of their broad Power of Attorney; their denial of Petitioner’s
access to either Marvel Roehrs or the Trust’s complete financial records; Abraham’s complaint
about Petitioner to the sheriff’s office; the invalidity of the Walstroms’ purported written lease on
its face; the evidence that Marvel Roehrs has become mentally incapacitated; and the fact that the
principal asset of the Trust has been rented below market value to Walstrom, an improperly favored
beneficiary, for years. See Sigfrid, 2020 Minn. Dist. LEXIS 204, at *21-28 (finding nephew and
close friend demonstrated a likelihood of success on the merits of their challenge to a disclaimer to
a living trust based on evidence of undue influence, including donor’s advanced age and declining
mental health).
Moreover, Abraham, the Trustee’s son, has implied that he has control of the Trust’s
checkbook and is also using one or more the buildings on the farmland for his own personal use
without compensating the Trust. M. Roehrs Aff. ¶¶ 23-24. The administration of the Trust to favor
17
81-CV-23-104
Filed in District Court
State of Minnesota
3/22/2023 5:25 PM
Abraham, a stranger to the Trust, also violates Marvel Roehrs’ duties to administer the Trust
consistent with the clear terms of the Trust Agreement and for the good of the beneficiaries. See In
re Estate of Stuchlik, 857 N.W.2d at 70 (noting “that the duty of impartiality includes a duty to
conform to the settlor’s intentions and the terms of the trust instrument”).
Based on the foregoing, as well as for the other reasons set forth herein, this factor favors the
grant of the time-sensitive, preliminary injunctive relief requested by Petitioner regarding the rental
of the farmland at the market rate for the upcoming growing season.
B. The Relative Harm in Granting or Denying the Requested Relief.
This factor also favors Petitioner’s motion for preliminary injunctive relief. If the Court
were to enjoin Walstrom’s continued rental of the farmland at below market rates, she may argue
that she will be substantially harmed. As one of the beneficiaries of the Trust, however, Walstrom
must be treated the same as the other beneficiaries pursuant to the terms of the Trust Agreement.
Here, there is no provision of the Trust Agreement that would permit her to obtain favorable
treatment by being allowed to rent the farmland at a below market rate. See M. Roehrs Aff. Ex. A.
She has therefore improperly benefited financially at the expense of Petitioner and other
beneficiaries for years, 7 and that favoritism is precluded both by statute, including the statutory duty
of impartiality, as well as by the express terms of the Trust Agreement itself.
If, however, the Court declines to prohibit the ongoing rental of the farmland at below
market rates, Petitioner and the other four beneficiaries would be irreparably harmed by the
diminution in the value of the Trust as well as by the continued, and impermissible favoritism
shown to one of the beneficiaries. This is also an extremely time sensitive matter because the crop
season has almost begun. The balance of harms thus favors the grant of the requested preliminary
7
This loss is likely unrecoverable by either the Trust or the other beneficiaries.
18
81-CV-23-104
Filed in District Court
State of Minnesota
3/22/2023 5:25 PM
injunctive relief. See, e.g., Sigfrid, 2020 Minn. Dist. LEXIS 204, at *33-36 (finding irreparable
harm because, among other things, it would be “difficult to discern what the proper measure of the
increase or decrease in the value of trust assets was during the course of this litigation”).
C. The Relationship Between the Parties.
As the Trustee, Marvel Roehrs owes Petitioner, as a beneficiary, fiduciary duties, such as
impartiality, the provision of information, and the administration of the trust as a prudent investor
would. See supra (citing statutes and provisions of the Trust Agreement requiring same). Marvel
Roehrs is currently violating those duties and the grant of the requested preliminary injunctive relief
would end the ongoing violations relating to the rental of the farmland at less than current market
value. Therefore, this factor also favors the requested preliminary injunctive relief.
D. Public Policy.
Public policy is served when a trust is administered consistent with the applicable law and
the trust language itself. Here, the grant of the requested injunctive relief would eliminate Marvel
Roehrs’ continued administration of the Trust in a manner that violates her statutory duties as well
as the requirements of the Trust Agreement. As a result, this factor favors the grant of the requested
injunctive relief. See, e.g., Minn. Stat. § 501C.0801 (requiring that “the trustee shall administer the
trust in good faith, in accordance with its terms and purposes and the interests of the beneficiaries,
and in accordance with this chapter and all other applicable law”).
E. The Administrative Burden in Enforcing the Requested Injunctive Relief.
Petitioner is asking the Court to prohibit the rental of the farmland this crop year at below
market rates pending the ultimate resolution of this matter. If granted, this relief will be
implemented over a brief period of time and with minimal court interaction. Therefore, there is
little administrative burden and this fifth factor also favors the grant of the requested preliminary
injunctive relief. See Sigfrid, 2020 Minn. Dist. LEXIS 204, at *39-42 (finding an injunction to
19
81-CV-23-104
Filed in District Court
State of Minnesota
3/22/2023 5:25 PM
restrain defendants from transferring or encumbering trust assets imposed only “minimal burdens”
on the court and that the second request to freeze all of defendants’ assets, including unrelated
person
Preview
81-CV-23-104 Filed in District Court State of Minnesota 3/22/2023 5:25 PM STATE OF MINNESOTA IN DISTRICT COURT COUNTY OF WASECA THIRD JUDICIAL DISTRICT In the Matter of the Ronald E. Roehrs Case Type: Trust Trust dated August 9, 1999. Court File No. 81-CV-23-104 Judge Carol M. Hanks MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN SUPPORT OF MICHAEL ROEHRS’ MOTION FOR A PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION INTRODUCTION Petitioner Michael Roehrs (or “Petitioner”) moves the Court for preliminary injunctive relief in this matter because there are time-sensitive issues that will cause substantial, irreparable harm if they are not addressed on an expedited basis. First, there is substantial evidence that the current trustee for the trust at issue is incapacitated and that other, unauthorized persons have hijacked the trust and are obtaining benefits or pocketing money from the trust to which they are not entitled to the detriment of other beneficiaries. Michael Roehrs thus asks to the Court to grant preliminary injunctive relief removing the current trustee and appointing on a temporary basis Steven Roehrs, the successor trustee who had been expressly designated by the grantor under the controlling trust documents, to ensure that the trust is being properly managed during the pendency of this litigation. Second, the principal asset of the trust is farmland that has been preferentially rented to one of the six beneficiaries for years at rates substantially below market levels and the trustee has just rejected a fair market offer to rent the farmland at nearly four times the amount that the favored beneficiary has been paying for the farmland. There is extreme time pressure concerning the rental of the farmland for the upcoming growing season. Michael Roehrs is thus seeking preliminary 81-CV-23-104 Filed in District Court State of Minnesota 3/22/2023 5:25 PM injunctive relief from the Court ordering that the farmland be rented out for the upcoming season at a fair market level so that the trust is able to properly maximize the value of its assets, rather than to continue its rental at rates which impermissibly favor the beneficiary renting the farmland while irreparably harming the trust and all of the other beneficiaries. STATEMENT OF FACTS I. The Trust. This dispute involves the improper administration of a trust created by Ronald E. Roehrs (“Ronald Roehrs”), the father of Petitioner Michael Roehrs and Petitioner’s five siblings, Janet Tharp, Rhonda Conrath, Daniel Roehrs, Sandra Walstrom, and Steven Roehrs. On August 9, 1999, Ronald Roehrs executed a Trust Declaration (the “Declaration”), naming himself as the initial Trustee. On September 13, 1999, Ronald Roehrs executed the First Amendment to the Declaration (the “Amendment”). See Affidavit of Michael Roehrs dated 3/21/23 (“M. Roehrs Aff.”) Ex. A (Declaration and Amendment) (collectively the “Trust Agreement”). The original Declaration established a life estate in the 118.8 acres of farmland owned by the Trust in favor of Ronald E. Roehr’s wife, Marvel B. Roehrs (“Marvel Roehrs” or “Trustee”), with the remainder interest in favor of Ronald Roehrs’ six biological children. Marvel Roehrs is the stepmother of the six children. The Amendment to the Declaration revoked the life estate in Marvel Roehrs’ favor and provided that the Trust would continue to hold the farmland instead on the following terms: l) If my wife, Marvel B. Roehrs, shall survive me, she shall have the right to occupy our residence at 13903 275th Ave., New Richland, Minnesota for so long as she wishes to occupy it as her principal residence. This shall include the house and acreage occupied as the building site. The trust farmland rent shall be made available to her during such period to pay real estate taxes, insurance, maintenance and necessary improvement costs. 2 81-CV-23-104 Filed in District Court State of Minnesota 3/22/2023 5:25 PM 2) Upon the death of Marvel B. Roehrs or at such time as she elects to no longer reside in said residence, the Trustee shall distribute said building site and trust farmland to the six children of Ronald E. Roehrs as named in this trust. M. Roehrs Aff. Ex. A. The Amendment did not change any other terms of the Declaration. See id. The Trust Agreement did not contain any terms that would either justify or require the favoring of any one or more of the six children beneficiaries over any one or more of the other children beneficiaries. Rather, the Trust Agreement made clear that all of the children were to take “equal share.” See, e.g., M. Roehrs Aff. Ex. A (Declaration ¶V.A.2)) (providing that the six children beneficiaries are “Remaindermen in equal share”). The Declaration further provided in clear terms that one of the children, Steven Roehrs, was to be the successor Trustee: Death or Disability of the Grantor as Trustee. If at any time the Grantor has a disability (as previously defined), or upon the death of the Grantor, Marvel B. Roehrs, is designated as the successor Trustee. Such designee shall become the successor Trustee upon acceptance of the terms and conditions of this Trust. If the successor Trustee is unable or unwilling to serve, Steven Roehrs is designated as alternate successor Trustee. Id. Ex. A (Declaration ¶VII.B) (emphasis in original). II. Marvel Roehrs Becomes Trustee and Evidence Reveals She Is Now Incapacitated. Ronald E. Roehrs died on December 19, 2000, at which time the Trust became irrevocable. Upon her husband’s death, Marvel Roehrs assumed the role of the initial successor Trustee pursuant to Paragraph VII.B of the Trust Agreement quoted above, id; and she remains the Trustee today. Marvel Roehrs is eighty-eight years old. M. Roehrs Aff. ¶11. There is now substantial evidence that she has become unfit or unable to continue as Trustee and that others have taken 3 81-CV-23-104 Filed in District Court State of Minnesota 3/22/2023 5:25 PM advantage of her incapacity and hijacked control of the Trust. 1 Toward the end of last year, Petitioner had become increasingly concerned about his stepmother after realizing that her telephone had been disconnected. Id. ¶12. Petitioner left his home in Texas and drove to visit Marvel Roehrs at the family home on the farm on November 28, 2022. Id. While Petitioner was at the family home, Marvel Roehrs’ brother-in-law told Petitioner that Marvel Roehrs’ telephone had been disconnected because she had become vulnerable to the suggestions and will of others and had also been a victim of telephone scams. M. Roehrs Aff. ¶13. Petitioner returned to Minnesota on December 10, 2022, this time joined by his brother, Steven Roehrs, hoping to visit their stepmother to gauge how she was doing. M. Roehrs Aff. ¶14. Ervin Abraham (“Abraham”), Marvel Roehrs’ biological son, directed them to meet with Abraham for lunch the next day, December 11th, whereupon Abraham told them that they were not permitted to go to the family home or to visit his mother, Marvel Roehrs, and informed them that Marvel Roehrs had been secreted somewhere and that she would remain in hiding until Michael and Steven Roehrs left Minnesota. M. Roehrs Aff. ¶¶ 16-17. Abraham told Petitioner during that meeting that Marvel Roehrs is now suffering from a form of hereditary dementia and that Abraham had obtained a power-of-attorney over his mother. M. Roehrs Aff. ¶20. 2 1 Although the Trustee denies these and other similar assertions, see generally 3/21/23 Trustee’s Objection and Counter-petition Michael Roehrs Amended Petition (“Trustee Obj.”), there is substantial evidence to the contrary as well of evidence of indue influence. See infra. 2 Petitioner later learned that his sister, Sandra Walstrom, was also an attorney-in-fact pursuant to that power of attorney. See M. Roehrs Aff. ¶21 & Ex. B (Power of Attorney). 4 81-CV-23-104 Filed in District Court State of Minnesota 3/22/2023 5:25 PM During that same meeting, Abraham informed Petitioner that Abraham had taken over one or more of the barn structures on the Trust property for storing Abraham’s own vehicles and equipment, without compensating the Trust for his personal use. M. Roehrs Aff. ¶24. In addition, Abraham implied that he had control of the Trust checkbook. Id. ¶18. Abraham then refused Petitioner’s legitimate request, as a beneficiary of the Trust, to review the Trust checkbook. Id. As a stranger to the Trust, Abraham’s control of the Trust checkbook is unjustifiable, and yet another indication of the Trustee’s incapacity and inability to discharge her duties as Trustee. Two days before meeting with Petitioner for lunch, Abraham also went to the Waseca County Sheriff’s Office and made an unwarranted complaint about Petitioner’s November visit to the family home. M. Roehrs Aff. Ex. C (1/6/23 sheriff’s incident report). The resulting sheriff’s incident report confirmed that: “[t]here are some concerns with memory issues involving Bonnie [Marvel Roehrs] and mentioning of the complainant Ervin being power of attorney.” Id. The sheriff’s incident report also reveals to what lengths Abraham is willing to go to prevent Petitioner from seeing Marvel Roehrs. The sheriff’s incident report indicated that Abraham had “inquired about criminal charges if the step-son Michael showed up again.” Id. The report further indicated that a “restraining order and no trespass order were also mentioned.” Id. Abraham’s refusal to allow Petitioner to visit Marvel Roehrs, Abraham’s unfounded complaint to the sheriff, and Abraham’s control of the Trust checkbook clearly demonstrate that Abraham is denying Petitioner access to both the Trustee (thereby hiding from Petitioner her incapacity) as well as access to Trust financial records and other information about the Trust, documentation to which Petitioner is statutorily entitled as a beneficiary. Id. ¶22. 5 81-CV-23-104 Filed in District Court State of Minnesota 3/22/2023 5:25 PM III. There Is Additional Evidence that Abraham, and Walstrom, Have Hijacked Control of the Trust. Abraham and Sandra Walstrom (“Walstrom”), one of Petitioner’s sisters, have also obtained a power of attorney, dated March 5, 2021, over Marvel Roehrs. M. Roehrs Aff. Ex. B (“Power of Attorney”). That Power of Attorney grants to them the broadest powers available under the Minnesota Statutory Short Form and provides Walstrom and Abraham with “all of the power listed … and all other matters other than health care decisions.” Id. at p.2. As a result, Walstrom and Abraham now control, inter alia, all of Marvel Roehrs’ personal finances, banking transactions, insurance transactions, family maintenance, records, fiduciary transactions, beneficiary transactions, and other affairs under the terms of the Power of Attorney. Id. Walstrom and Abraham are, however, also controlling all matters related to the Trust and its assets, serving as the de facto trustees of the Trust by taking advantage of Marvel Roehrs’ incapacity and abusing the control that Walstrom and Abraham wrested as attorneys-in-fact pursuant to Marvel Roehrs’ personal Power of Attorney. M. Roehrs Aff. ¶23. Walstrom and Abraham’s intent to hijack control over all matters related to the Trust, as well as to keep Petitioner apart from Marvel Roehrs, is further confirmed by an email Walstrom sent to Petitioner on December 14, 2022. Id. Ex. E (12/14/22 Walstrom email). Walstrom claimed that Marvel Roehrs “prefers not to have contact with either of you other than in writing by US mail.” Id. With her December 14, 2022, email to Petitioner, Walstrom also attached the Power of Attorney, demonstrating that she and Abraham are now relying on that Power of Attorney to hide 6 81-CV-23-104 Filed in District Court State of Minnesota 3/22/2023 5:25 PM Marvel Roehrs’ incapacity, maintain their control over the Trust, 3 and block Petitioner’s right to obtain financial records and other relevant information relating to the Trust property and to his legitimate interests as a beneficiary of the Trust. See M. Roehrs Aff. ¶¶22, 25-26. IV. The Trust Has Been Administered to Improperly Favor Walstrom and Perhaps Others. Throughout the entire term of the Trust, its major asset has been 118.8 acres of high-quality farmland located in Waseca County, Minnesota. M. Roehrs Aff. ¶27. The Trustee rented the Trust’s farmland to Walstrom’s husband for $11,880.00 per year from 2001 through the present. 4 3/3/23 Walstrom Objection and Counterpetition to M. Roehrs’ Petition at p. 1, ¶8 (“Walstrom Obj.”). Petitioner believes that during this long-term period of below-market rental, the Trustee has not collected any other revenue from the farmland, but this will not be confirmed until the Trustee is ordered to comply with her duties to produce the Trust’s complete financial records to Petitioner. M. Roehrs Aff. ¶27. For more than twenty years, the Walstroms have been paying $100.00 per acre to rent the Trust’s farmland, an amount which is substantially below market level. Id. ¶27. To justify this improper favoritism, Walstrom has alleged that “[w]hile my father was still living, he, my stepmother, and Garry Walstrom (my husband) agreed my husband would continue to farm and rent the Farmland at an annual rental rate of $11,880.00 per year.” Walstrom Obj. at p.1, ¶7. The Trustee also alleges the existence of verbal instructions from Ronald Roehrs that contradict the clear terms of the Trust Agreement. Trustee Obj. at p. 3, ¶9(a). As discussed more fully infra, allegations 3 Walstrom’s demand that all of Petitioner’s requests or communications must be sent to the Trustee via U.S. mail sets up yet another barrier between Petitioner and his stepmother, denying him any in- person access. M. Roehrs Aff. ¶25. 4 Although Walstrom alleges that her husband has been the only one renting the farmland, see Walstrom Obj. at p. 1, ¶8, the below-market rental rate has clearly enriched Walstrom as well as her husband. M. Roehrs Aff. ¶28. 7 81-CV-23-104 Filed in District Court State of Minnesota 3/22/2023 5:25 PM regarding the existence of some contradictory verbal agreement or instructions do not alter the clear written terms of the Trust Agreement. Petitioner’s position that the farmland has been rented for too little money is further confirmed by Sandra Walstrom’s offer to rent the farmland for the upcoming crop year at a rate of $208.00 per acre. See Walstrom Obj. at p. 3, ¶9. For crop year 2024, Walstrom has offered to rent the farmland for $228.00 per acre and for crop year 2025, Walstrom has offered to pay $248.00 per acre. Walstrom Obj. at pp. 3-4, ¶3(b)-(c). The amounts now being offered by Walstrom are still below market rate. The farmland should have been rented for a market rate of at least $300.00 per acre over the years, which means that Walstrom and her husband have been improperly receiving a discount of about $23,000.00 per year on the rental. M. Roehrs Aff. ¶29. Thus, the Trust has been suffering lost income of about $23,000.00 per year. Id. On March 9, 2023, Petitioner made a written offer to rent the farmland for calendar year 2023 for $400.00 per acre and to pay the entire rent amount on April 15, 2023. M. Roehrs Aff. Ex. G (3/9/23 rental offer). Petitioner also believes that if the farmland were put out for competitive bid, it would rent for $400.00 per acre, which is the basis for the amount of his rental offer. M. Roehrs Aff. ¶30. On March 20, 2023, however, the attorney for the Trustee sent a letter rejecting Petitioner’s much higher offer to rent the farmland. M. Roehrs Aff. Ex. H (3/20/23 letter declining Petitioner’s offer & attached land rental agreement). That letter also forwarded a written lease agreement between Garry Walstrom and the “Ronald Roehrs Estate C/O Marvel Bonnie Roehrs” for the farmland dated “12/30/2022.” Id. This is, however, the first time, to Petitioner’s knowledge, that there has ever been a written lease agreement for the farmland, suggesting this “lease” is yet another example of Walstrom’s 8 81-CV-23-104 Filed in District Court State of Minnesota 3/22/2023 5:25 PM improper control as well as the Trustee’s ongoing and egregious breach of her duties. M. Roehrs Aff. ¶32. That written lease is also invalid on its face for several reasons. The lease was not signed by any party until January 20, 2023, twenty days after the purported beginning of the lease term. Id. Ex. H (letter and attached lease). Indeed, the written lease was not even executed by Marvel Roehrs in her capacity as the Trustee. Id.; see also id. ¶32. In addition, the Trust, which owns the farmland, is not a party to that January 20, 2023 lease; the Estate of Ronald E. Roehrs is merely recited in the lease as the landlord. Id.; id. Ex. H. The farmland described in the written lease has never been owned by Ronald E. Roehrs’ Estate. Id. ¶32. Rather, the farmland was conveyed by Ronald Roehrs and Marvel Roehrs to the Ronald E. Roehrs Trust by Warranty Deed recorded on August 10, 1999, more than a year before the inception of Ronald Roehrs’ Estate (which occurred upon Ronald Roehrs’ death on December 19, 2000). Id. ¶32; id. Ex. I (Warranty Deed). Given the foregoing, the proffered written “lease” is thus not a valid lease of the Trust farmland. Moreover, this written lease is yet another example of Sandra Walstrom’s improper control over the Trustee and the Trust as well as the Trustee’s ongoing and serious breach of her duties. M. Roehrs Aff. ¶32. The fatal flaws on the face of that written lease may, however, explain why it was not filed with the Court in the context of Sandra Walstrom’s Objection and Counterpetition and why it was never mentioned in that Objection and Counterpetition. See generally Walstrom Obj. The Objection and Counterpetition only alleged Walstrom’s husband had entered into a lease of the farmland for the “2023 crop year,” with no exact date and no reference to this new written “lease.” Id. at p.3, ¶6. Walstrom’s omission of any mention of a written lease of the Trust farmland raises serious questions about that lease’s validity. The refusal letter from Trustee’s counsel also claimed that the Trustee had to deny Petitioner’s rental offer because he has no equipment in Minnesota and that as a result, there is a 9 81-CV-23-104 Filed in District Court State of Minnesota 3/22/2023 5:25 PM risk the farmland will remain fallow for the 2023 crop year. M. Roehrs Aff. Ex. H (letter). Petitioner, however, owns five tractors, more than a dozen farming implements and a semi-tractor trailer capable of transporting Petitioner’s farming equipment from Texas to Minnesota. M. Roehrs Aff. ¶34. Moreover, between January 2007 and February 2019, Petitioner owned and operated large capacity grain storage facilities and farmed 155 acres of farmland in Jackson County and Martin County, Minnesota. Id. ¶36. Since January 2008 to the present, Petitioner has also owned and farmed 150 acres of farmland in Cooke County, Texas. Id. ¶36. If Petitioner were to choose to not farm the land himself, he has the capacity to contract the farming out at a net profit. Id. ¶35. The Walstroms, on the other hand, have no farm equipment at all and Petitioner believes that as a result, the Walstroms must contract much of the farming out. Id. This excuse thus does not justify the Trustee’s denial of Petitioner’s clearly superior rental offer. Renting the farmland to one of the beneficiaries for substantially less than market value has not only improperly dissipated the value of the corpus of the Trust, but it has also inappropriately favored one of the Trust’s beneficiaries over the other beneficiaries. In addition, Petitioner’s review of the limited Trust financial records he has been given suggests that both Walstrom and Abraham have been receiving financial benefits from the Trust via the Power of Attorney they have obtained over Marvel Roehrs’ personal affairs. M. Roehrs Aff. ¶40. This is another example of impermissible favoritism towards one beneficiary (and a stranger to the Trust) as well as the improper administration of Trust assets in violation of the Trustee’s duties, and contrary to the clear terms of the Trust Agreement. Id. ¶40. 10 81-CV-23-104 Filed in District Court State of Minnesota 3/22/2023 5:25 PM V. Petitioner Has Been Improperly Denied Access to the Trust’s Financial Records. Marvel Roehrs has failed to provide the annual accounting required by the Trust pursuant to Paragraph VII.B, during the entire period of her trusteeship, that is, from December 19, 2000, to March 1, 2023. Id. ¶37. On February 8, 2023, Petitioner made a written request for an accounting on the Trust. Id. On February 9, 2023, in response to Petitioner’s request, he received a limited accounting for the Trust (which is labelled the “Preliminary Accounting”), but it only addressed the years 2017-2022. Id. Ex. 38. Petitioner did not, however, receive any documentation in support of that Preliminary Accounting or a final accounting for that or any other period. M. Roehrs Aff. ¶38. The Preliminary Accounting is the only financial information that has been provided to Petitioner for the entire period from December 19, 2000, to the present. Id. ¶39. Petitioner still has not ever received any financial records for the Trust covering the period from December 19, 2000, through 2016. Id. ¶39. The Preliminary Accounting reveals another issue related to the Trustee’s improper Trust administration. Paragraph V.A.1) of the Trust Agreement, as amended, provides that the Trust assets may only be used to pay for “real estate taxes, insurance, maintenance and necessary improvement costs” for the farmland. M. Roehrs Aff. Ex. A. The Preliminary Accounting indicates, however, that in the period from 2017-2022, the Trustee used Trust assets to pay for items that are unrelated to real estate taxes, insurance, maintenance, and necessary improvement costs, including, for example, jewelry, food, and various withdrawals labelled “cash;” the use of the cash withdrawals was never identified in the Preliminary Accounting. M. Roehrs Aff. Ex. D. 11 81-CV-23-104 Filed in District Court State of Minnesota 3/22/2023 5:25 PM ARGUMENT I. Standard. The Minnesota Trust Code grants a court broad equitable powers in trust cases involving, for example, a request to remove a trustee for breach of a duty. Minn. Stat. § 501C.0706(c) specifically provides that: Pending a final decision on a petition to remove a trustee, or in lieu of or in addition to removing a trustee, the court may order such appropriate relief under section 501C.1001, paragraph (b), as may be necessary to protect the trust property or the interests of the beneficiaries. Id. (citing Minn. Stat. § 501C.1001(b)). Section 501C.1001(b), the provision cited therein, in turn permits the grant of injunctive relief for purposes of, inter alia: (i) “enjoin[ing] the trustee from committing a breach of trust,” Minn. Stat. § 501C.1001(b)(2); (ii) “order[ing] a trustee to account,” id. (b)(4); (iii) “suspend[ing] the trustee,” id. (b)(6); or (iv) “order[ing] any other appropriate relief.” Id. (b)(10). There appears to be some question as to whether the Court should also consider the Dahlberg factors when determining whether to grant Petitioner’s request for injunctive relief. In In re Otto Bremer Trust, A21-0053, 2021 Minn. App. Unpub. LEXIS 716 (Minn. Ct. App. Aug. 30, 2021), the Minnesota Court of Appeals declined to rule whether the consideration of the Dahlberg factors was a reversible error when determining whether to grant preliminary injunctive relief because the Court found that the district court had used those factors as a “‘guide’” but had applied “the statutory standard for interim remedies set forth in section 501.C0706(c).” Id. at *10 n.2. That statutory standard provides that the “court may order such appropriate relief under section 501C.1001, paragraph (b), as may be necessary to protect the trust property or the interests of the beneficiaries.” Minn. Stat. § 501C.0706(c); see In re Otto Bremer Trust, 2021 Minn. App. Unpub. LEXIS 716, at *8-10 (discussing statutory standard). 12 81-CV-23-104 Filed in District Court State of Minnesota 3/22/2023 5:25 PM In another case, Sigfrid v. Taylor, the district court applied, without discussion, the Dahlberg factors when granting a temporary injunction which prohibited, among other things, the transfer of trust assets and the use of trust assets for personal benefit where the petitioners had alleged that a beneficiary’s disclaimer of all trust assets had been obtained by undue influence. See Sigfrid, No. 56-CV-20-983, 2020 Minn. Dist. LEXIS 204, at *22-42 (Minn. Dist. Ct. June 2, 2020). Given the uncertainty regarding the applicability of Dahlberg, this memorandum will analyze the Dahlberg factors as well as the statutory standard set forth in Minn. Stat. § 501C.1001(b) to support of the Petitioner’s request for the grant of preliminary injunctive relief. II. The Court Should Grant a Preliminary Injunction Ordering that the Trust’s Farmland Be Rented at Market Level for the Upcoming Crop Season. Minn. Stat. § 501C.0901 requires the Trustee to invest and manage trust assets as a prudent investor would by considering the purposes, terms, distribution requirements, and other circumstances of the trust. Section 501C.0901 further provides that the Trustee shall exercise reasonable care, skill, and caution in satisfying this standard. Paragraph VI.C of the Trust Agreement also requires the Trustee to exercise the judgment and care, under the circumstances then prevailing, that persons of prudence, discretion, and intelligence would exercise in the management of their own affairs. M. Roehrs Aff. Ex. A. The Court is specifically empowered to order the appropriate relief “under section 501C.1001, paragraph (b), as may be necessary to protect the trust property or the interests of the beneficiaries.” Minn. Stat. § 501C.0706(c). Here, by renting the farmland to Walstrom and her husband for more than twenty years at less than market rate, Marvel Roehrs has not properly preserved or protected the Trust property or the interests of Petitioner as beneficiary of the Trust, by failing to maximize the income that can be generated by the Trust’s farmland, thereby violating her duties as Trustee by persistently failing to act as a prudent investor and declining to maximize the assets of the Trust. 13 81-CV-23-104 Filed in District Court State of Minnesota 3/22/2023 5:25 PM Renting the farmland to one of the beneficiaries at a rate below market also improperly favors that beneficiary to the detriment of others. Minn. Stat. § 501C.0803 imposes on a trustee the duty of impartiality and provides that “[i]f a trust has two or more beneficiaries, the trustee shall administer the trust impartially, giving due regard to the beneficiaries’ respective interests.” The Trust Agreement clearly provides that all of the children beneficiaries have an equal share of the Trust. See, e.g., M. Roehrs Aff. Ex. A (Trust Agreement ¶V.A). The administration of the Trust in a manner which has favored Walstrom over the other beneficiaries, including the Petitioner, violates Marvel Roehrs’ duty of impartiality and loyalty as Trustee. Cf. In re Estate of Stuchlik, 857 N.W.2d 57, 71 (Neb. 2014)(construing Nebraska Uniform Trust Code 5 and remanding case for determination whether co-trustees, the brother and mother of petitioner, had breached their duties of loyalty and impartiality by allegedly entering “into leases with members of the family that were below fair market value”)(also citing Restatement (Third) of Trusts § 79 (2007)). 6 It also demonstrates Walstrom’s undue influence over Marvel Roehrs as a result of the Trustee’s advanced age and impaired mental condition, see supra (discussing same); the continued rental of the farmland at below market rates to Walstrom; the extremely broad Power of Attorney obtained in favor of Walstrom and Abraham, see M. Roehrs Aff. Ex. B; and Walstrom’s email restricting Petitioner’s access and ordering him to communicate with the Trustee solely by U.S. mail. Id. Ex. E; see Sigfrid, 2020 Minn. Dist. LEXIS 204, at *21-28 (granting temporary injunction 5 The Minnesota Court of Appeals has held that “[w]hen interpreting a uniform law, an appellate court ‘will consider’ other jurisdictions’ interpretations of their uniform acts.” In re Estate of Nelson, 936 N.W.2d 897, 906 (Minn. Ct. App. 2019), citing, inter alia, Minn. Stat. § 645.22 (providing that “[l]aws uniform with those of other states shall be interpreted and construed to effect their general purpose to make uniform the laws of those states which enact them.”). 6 See, e.g., In re Otto Bremer Trust, 2023 Minn. App. LEXIS 4, at *19 n.13 (Minnesota courts look to the Restatement (Third) of Trusts as authoritative)(citation omitted); In re Revocable Trust Agreement of Avis v. Cordes, Minn. App. Unpub. LEXIS 730, at *14 (citing Restatement (Third) of Trusts for definition of trustee’s duty of loyalty). 14 81-CV-23-104 Filed in District Court State of Minnesota 3/22/2023 5:25 PM to protect trust assets and finding undue influence based on, inter alia, donor’s age, physical health, and mental health, including the degree of mental capacity); cf. Gunnells v. Harkness, 847 S.E.2d 97, 101-02 (S.C. Ct. App. 2020)(ruling that restricted access to the donor was one indication of a son’s exercise of undue influence over his mother when she revised her will); Family Services, Inc. v. Beebe, 5th Dist. Stark No. 2000CA00176, 2000 Ohio App. LEXIS 5529, at *5-7 (Ohio Ct. App. Nov. 27, 2000)(ruling that there was a presumption of undue influence where son was a fiduciary as a result of his father’s power of attorney in son’s favor and after obtaining power of attorney, son transferred trust assets to his children). Trying to justify this improper favoritism, Walstrom has alleged that “[w]hile my father was still living, he, my stepmother, and Garry Walstrom (my husband) agreed my husband would continue to farm and rent the Farmland at an annual rental rate of $11,880.00 per year.” Walstrom Obj. at p.1, ¶7. The Trustee similarly alleges that Ronald Roehrs had given a verbal instruction regarding the favorable rent amount. Trustee Obj. at p. 3, ¶9(a). Minnesota law is clear, however, that a supposed contrary verbal agreement or conflicting verbal instructions are not permitted to change the unambiguous terms of a trust agreement. Here, the Trust Agreement specifies that the beneficiaries are to take equally. See M. Roehrs Aff. Ex. A (Declaration ¶V.A.2)). The Court should thus reject Walstrom’s allegation about the existence of this verbal “agreement” as well as the Trustee’s claim about contrary verbal instructions. See, e.g., In re Revocable Trust Agreement of Avis v. Cordes, A19-1872, 2020 Minn. App. Unpub. LEXIS 730, at *11-12 (Minn. Ct. App. Aug. 31, 2020)(holding that when “the trust agreement is unambiguous, a court discerns the grantor’s intent from the language of the trust agreement and does not consider extrinsic evidence.”)(citation omitted). The Court should also reject the argument made by the Trustee’s counsel that a written lease provided for the first time on March 20, 2023 precludes the preliminary injunctive relief Petitioner 15 81-CV-23-104 Filed in District Court State of Minnesota 3/22/2023 5:25 PM is requesting for the crop year 2023 because it would force the Trustee to breach a written contract. See M. Roehrs Aff. Ex. H (letter rejecting Petitioner’s rental offer and attaching written lease agreement). As set forth more fully, supra, that written lease is invalid on its face for several reasons. The lease appears to be backdated because it was not signed by any party until January 20, 2023, twenty days after the purported beginning of the lease term, and Marvel Roehrs’ signature on the lease is invalid because she did not execute it in her capacity as Trustee. Id. Ex. H (letter and attached lease). The lease further fails because the Trust, which owns the farmland, is not a party the lease. Id. The Estate of Ronald E. Roehrs is identified in the lease as the Landlord of the farmland, id.; but the farmland has never been owned by the Ronald E. Roehrs’ Estate. Id. ¶32. Rather, the farmland was conveyed by Ronald Roehrs and Marvel Roehrs to the Ronald E. Roehrs Trust by Warranty Deed recorded on August 10, 1999, more than a year before the inception of Ronald Roehrs’ Estate (which occurred upon Ronald Roehrs’ death on December 19, 2000). Id. ¶32; id. Ex. I (Warranty Deed). As a result, the proffered written “lease” is not a valid lease of the Trust farmland for the crop year 2023 and it does not preclude Petitioner’s requested relief regarding the rental of the farmland at market level. Based on the foregoing, Petitioner asks the Court to enjoin the Trustee from continuing to breach her fiduciary duties as to the rental of the farmland, see Minn. Stat. § 501C.1001(b)(2), and to issue a preliminary injunction immediately prohibiting 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. See, e.g., Sigfrid, 2020 Minn. Dist. LEXIS 204, at *32 (when discussing whether movants had 16 81-CV-23-104 Filed in District Court State of Minnesota 3/22/2023 5:25 PM shown irreparable harm if the court were to deny entry of a temporary injunction, noting that “trial courts in this state have also issued injunctions meant to preserve disputed assets in cases”). The Dahlberg factors also support the issuance of this preliminary injunction. The Minnesota Court of Appeals, in In re Otto Bremer Trust, summarized those factors as follows: The Dahlberg analysis is a five-factor test directing courts to consider (1) the parties’ relationships, (2) the relative harm to the parties of granting or denying temporary relief, (3) the likelihood of success on the merits, (4) public policy, and (5) the administrative burden in enforcing injunctive relief. In re Otto Bremer Trust, 2021 Minn. App. Unpub. LEXIS 716, at *7 (citing Dahlberg Bros. v. Ford Motor Co., 137 N.W.2d 314, 321-22 (Minn. 1965)). A. Petitioner’s Likelihood of Success on the Merits. Petitioner has shown there is a likelihood he will succeed on the merits of this dispute regarding the farmland because, inter alia, there is evidence of undue influence over the Trustee by Walstrom (and Abraham) as a result of their broad Power of Attorney; their denial of Petitioner’s access to either Marvel Roehrs or the Trust’s complete financial records; Abraham’s complaint about Petitioner to the sheriff’s office; the invalidity of the Walstroms’ purported written lease on its face; the evidence that Marvel Roehrs has become mentally incapacitated; and the fact that the principal asset of the Trust has been rented below market value to Walstrom, an improperly favored beneficiary, for years. See Sigfrid, 2020 Minn. Dist. LEXIS 204, at *21-28 (finding nephew and close friend demonstrated a likelihood of success on the merits of their challenge to a disclaimer to a living trust based on evidence of undue influence, including donor’s advanced age and declining mental health). Moreover, Abraham, the Trustee’s son, has implied that he has control of the Trust’s checkbook and is also using one or more the buildings on the farmland for his own personal use without compensating the Trust. M. Roehrs Aff. ¶¶ 23-24. The administration of the Trust to favor 17 81-CV-23-104 Filed in District Court State of Minnesota 3/22/2023 5:25 PM Abraham, a stranger to the Trust, also violates Marvel Roehrs’ duties to administer the Trust consistent with the clear terms of the Trust Agreement and for the good of the beneficiaries. See In re Estate of Stuchlik, 857 N.W.2d at 70 (noting “that the duty of impartiality includes a duty to conform to the settlor’s intentions and the terms of the trust instrument”). Based on the foregoing, as well as for the other reasons set forth herein, this factor favors the grant of the time-sensitive, preliminary injunctive relief requested by Petitioner regarding the rental of the farmland at the market rate for the upcoming growing season. B. The Relative Harm in Granting or Denying the Requested Relief. This factor also favors Petitioner’s motion for preliminary injunctive relief. If the Court were to enjoin Walstrom’s continued rental of the farmland at below market rates, she may argue that she will be substantially harmed. As one of the beneficiaries of the Trust, however, Walstrom must be treated the same as the other beneficiaries pursuant to the terms of the Trust Agreement. Here, there is no provision of the Trust Agreement that would permit her to obtain favorable treatment by being allowed to rent the farmland at a below market rate. See M. Roehrs Aff. Ex. A. She has therefore improperly benefited financially at the expense of Petitioner and other beneficiaries for years, 7 and that favoritism is precluded both by statute, including the statutory duty of impartiality, as well as by the express terms of the Trust Agreement itself. If, however, the Court declines to prohibit the ongoing rental of the farmland at below market rates, Petitioner and the other four beneficiaries would be irreparably harmed by the diminution in the value of the Trust as well as by the continued, and impermissible favoritism shown to one of the beneficiaries. This is also an extremely time sensitive matter because the crop season has almost begun. The balance of harms thus favors the grant of the requested preliminary 7 This loss is likely unrecoverable by either the Trust or the other beneficiaries. 18 81-CV-23-104 Filed in District Court State of Minnesota 3/22/2023 5:25 PM injunctive relief. See, e.g., Sigfrid, 2020 Minn. Dist. LEXIS 204, at *33-36 (finding irreparable harm because, among other things, it would be “difficult to discern what the proper measure of the increase or decrease in the value of trust assets was during the course of this litigation”). C. The Relationship Between the Parties. As the Trustee, Marvel Roehrs owes Petitioner, as a beneficiary, fiduciary duties, such as impartiality, the provision of information, and the administration of the trust as a prudent investor would. See supra (citing statutes and provisions of the Trust Agreement requiring same). Marvel Roehrs is currently violating those duties and the grant of the requested preliminary injunctive relief would end the ongoing violations relating to the rental of the farmland at less than current market value. Therefore, this factor also favors the requested preliminary injunctive relief. D. Public Policy. Public policy is served when a trust is administered consistent with the applicable law and the trust language itself. Here, the grant of the requested injunctive relief would eliminate Marvel Roehrs’ continued administration of the Trust in a manner that violates her statutory duties as well as the requirements of the Trust Agreement. As a result, this factor favors the grant of the requested injunctive relief. See, e.g., Minn. Stat. § 501C.0801 (requiring that “the trustee shall administer the trust in good faith, in accordance with its terms and purposes and the interests of the beneficiaries, and in accordance with this chapter and all other applicable law”). E. The Administrative Burden in Enforcing the Requested Injunctive Relief. Petitioner is asking the Court to prohibit the rental of the farmland this crop year at below market rates pending the ultimate resolution of this matter. If granted, this relief will be implemented over a brief period of time and with minimal court interaction. Therefore, there is little administrative burden and this fifth factor also favors the grant of the requested preliminary injunctive relief. See Sigfrid, 2020 Minn. Dist. LEXIS 204, at *39-42 (finding an injunction to 19 81-CV-23-104 Filed in District Court State of Minnesota 3/22/2023 5:25 PM restrain defendants from transferring or encumbering trust assets imposed only “minimal burdens” on the court and that the second request to freeze all of defendants’ assets, including unrelated person