Minnesota Supreme Court, 1976

Swan v. Swan

Minnesota Supreme Court · Decided May 7, 1976 · Per Curiam

241 N.W.2d 817; 308 Minn. 466; 1976 Minn. LEXIS 1799 (North Western Reporter, Second Series)

Counsel

Gault, MaeKenzie, Gustafson & Litynski and Warren E. Litynski, for appellant., Erickson, Erie & Odland and Leonard A. Erickson, for respondents Joyce Knutson and others.

Can I rely on this case?

Citation treatment has not been reviewed for this case. The notes below come from the citation graph and the Minnesota Revisor's amendment records, not from a review of how later courts treated this decision.

(as of 9/30/2026)

Last cited by a Minnesota appellate court in 1986, among the opinions in this site’s citation index.

Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.

See our Terms of Use before relying on these notes. Report an error

Cases that cite this one

2 later published cases cite this decision.

Matter of Estate of Gardner (N.M. Ct. App. 1992)
In re Estate of Truhn (Minn. Ct. App. 1986)

This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.

Opinion

Per Curiam.

This appeal centers around an unfortunate family dispute involving the distribution of the family farm upon the father’s death. The father left a will providing that his estate be divided equally among his nine children. In an effort to keep the farm in the family, the members of the family entered into a purported contract to control the disposition of the property, the enforcement of which is the purpose of this action.

The able trial court denied specific enforcement, holding that the agreement was unenforceable, null, and void.

Settlement of an estate by agreement of all heirs is generally favored, and the right of the heirs to agree among themselves to alter the interest and amount to which they are entitled under the will is recognized in our new Uniform Probate Code. Minn. St. 524.3—912.

The agreement, however, must contain the elements of a valid contract. A review of the proceeding and a mere reading of the agreement convinces us that a valid and enforceable contract was not entered into by the parties, and the trial court’s refusal to enforce the contract must be affirmed.

Affirmed.

Case-law data current through September 30, 2026. Source: CourtListener bulk data.