In re the Non-Probate Estate of: Robert W. Fashant, Decedent Merilee Doll v. Julie A. Haekenkamp, and KleinBank ( 2016 )

This opinion will be unpublished and
may not be cited except as provided by
Minn. Stat. § 480A.08, subd. 3 (2014).
STATE OF MINNESOTA
IN COURT OF APPEALS
A16-0367
In re the Non-Probate Estate of: Robert W. Fashant, Decedent
Merilee Doll,
Respondent,
vs.
Julie A. Haekenkamp, et al.,
Appellants,
and
KleinBank,
Defendant.
Filed August 29, 2016
Affirmed
Klaphake, Judge *
Wright County District Court
File No. 86-CV-13-3568
Joseph J. Cassioppi, Jessica L. Edwards, Fredrikson & Byron, P.A., Minneapolis,
Minnesota; and
Jay A. Joyner, Joyner Law Office, Minneapolis, Minnesota (for respondent)
John T. Peterson, Johnson, Larson & Peterson, P.A., Buffalo, Minnesota (for appellants)
R. Lawrence Harris, Melchert, Hubert, Sjodin, PLLP, Waconia, MN (for defendant)
*
Retired judge of the Minnesota Court of Appeals, serving by appointment pursuant to
Minn. Const. art. VI, § 10.
Considered and decided by Connolly, Presiding Judge; Larkin, Judge; and
Klaphake, Judge.
UNPUBLISHED OPINION
KLAPHAKE, Judge
Acting as successor attorney-in-fact, appellant challenges the district court’s order
voiding her change of primary beneficiary designations to decedent’s IRAs, arguing that
she was authorized to do so under a durable power of attorney. Because the district court
did not err in determining that decedent intended respondent-wife to be the primary
beneficiary to his IRAs, we affirm.
DECISION
We review equitable determinations for an abuse of discretion. City of North
Oaks v. Sarpal, 797 N.W.2d 18, 23 (Minn. 2011). On appeal from the decision of a district
court sitting without a jury, we review the district court’s findings of fact for clear error
and determine whether it erred in its conclusions of law. See Minn. R. Civ. P. 52.01;
Schweich v. Ziegler, Inc., 463 N.W.2d 722, 729 (Minn. 1990).
The central issue raised in this appeal is whether the district court abused its
discretion in voiding appellant Julie A. Haekenkamp’s change of primary beneficiary
designations to decedent Robert W. Fashant’s five IRAs two days before his death. The
procedural posture of this case is akin to an interpleader action, as respondent Merilee Doll
sued Haekenkamp for breach of fiduciary duty as successor attorney-in-fact and requested
that the district court declare her as the rightful beneficiary of decedent’s IRAs. In an
interpleader action, the district court may apply equitable principles in disputes where the
2
parties seek declaration of the rightful beneficiary of a decedent’s IRA. Gen. Mills Fed.
Credit Union v. Lofgren, 839 N.W.2d 766, 774 (Minn. App. 2013). The legal basis of
Doll’s lawsuit centers on Haekenkamp, as successor attorney-in-fact, submitting change-
of-beneficiary requests to KleinBank, the custodian of decedent’s IRAs. The requests
effectively removed Doll as the designated primary beneficiary of decedent’s IRAs, and
transferred her share to Haekenkamp and appellants James H. Kreitlow, Jill T. Bowman,
and Lisa D. Kasper, with each to receive a quarter share.
Haekenkamp argues that the language of the power of attorney conferred upon her
by decedent in 2008, which was never revoked, authorized her as successor attorney-in-
fact to transfer decedent’s property to her. She also points out that there is no statutory
requirement under the Minnesota durable power of attorney act, Minn. Stat. §§ 523.01-.26
(2014), requiring her to seek decedent’s permission before acting.
The record evidence persuades us that the district court properly concluded that
decedent clearly and unambiguously intended Doll to be the primary beneficiary to his
IRAs. See Metropolitan Life Ins. Co. v. Belland, 583 N.W.2d 592, 593 (Minn. App. 1998)
(holding district court did not abuse its discretion in concluding that decedent “clearly and
unambiguously intended to name the bank as beneficiary of his life insurance policy”).
Three months before decedent and Doll married in April 2011, he named her as the primary
beneficiary to his IRAs, denoting her as “spouse.” Shortly after the marriage, decedent
executed several legal documents transferring his personal assets to Doll and authorizing
her to make medical and legal decisions on his behalf. He executed a new will naming
Doll as sole heir of his estate, he drafted a health-care directive naming Doll as his health-
3
care agent, and he named Doll as the sole primary beneficiary of his life insurance policy.
Notably, he also executed a new short-form power of attorney naming Doll as his attorney-
in-fact, but he failed to revoke the earlier power of attorney naming Haekenkamp as
successor attorney-in-fact. And as the district court noted in its order, decedent never
personally gave Haekenkamp authority or direction to change the beneficiary designation
of his IRAs.
Having concluded that the district court did not err in determining decedent’s intent,
we decline to address Haekenkamp’s argument that she is authorized under Minn. Stat.
§ 523.24, subd. 7 (2014) to change decedent’s beneficiary designations or Doll’s breach-
of-fiduciary-duty claim.
Affirmed.
4