We are working remotely and all of us continue to be available by telephone or email. In alignment with national, state and local initiatives as it relates to the coronavirus, we remain open for business and have changed the way we are working for the health and well-being of our employees, and you, our valued clients and colleagues. Read more

Mason & Helmers
We Welcome Your Call
  • Phone 651-323-2548
  • Toll Free 877-389-5533

Burden of proof in probate litigation

Probate litigation can become necessary in a variety of circumstances. If you find yourself needing to take action, such as challenging a will or any of its provisions, it can be helpful to understand some basics about how Minnesota courts tend to handle such disputes.

Generally, those who submit the will as valid under Minnesota law have the initial burden of proving its validity. The basic legal requirements state that a will must be in writing, signed by the testator and by two witnesses to the signing.

Proving a will is valid

If the will appears to meet these requirements, it will stand up unless someone else challenges any of these points. Then, the proponent of the will have to bring in at least one of the witnesses to testify about the circumstances of the signing. To avoid this possibility, some use a self-proving will, which means that, at the time of the signing, the testator and witnesses also sign notarized affidavits attesting to their signatures.

Subsequent challenges

Once a will passes the hurdles of technical requirements, the court presumes it valid. However, it can still face other types of challenges. Common grounds for will contests include allegations of a lack of testamentary capacity or of undue influence. The party making these allegations now bears the burden of proving them.

Both undue influence and a lack of testamentary capacity allegations essentially argue that the will does not reflect the testator's actual will. In one case, this is because the testator lacked the understanding as to the effects of making a will. In the other, it is because someone exerted a level of influence that took over the testator's own volition.

Meeting the burden of proof

Because the testator is obviously not available to clarify his or her intentions and understanding, the challenger will largely have to rely on circumstantial evidence to meet his or her burden of proof. Types of helpful evidence may include medical and psychological reports, testimony from close associates and caregivers and evidence of illogical conduct.

No Comments

Leave a comment
Comment Information

For Assistance with Estate Disputes & Other Matters, Contact Us

To learn more about the firm and how we can assist you,
contact Mason & Helmers in St. Paul, Minnesota. Call 651-323-2548 or 877-389-5533 (toll free) to set up an appointment.

*AV®, AV Preeminent®, Martindale-Hubbell Distinguished and Martindale-Hubbell Notable are certification marks used under license in accordance with the Martindale-Hubbell certification procedures, standards and policies. Martindale-Hubbell® is the facilitator of a peer review
rating process. Ratings reflect the anonymous opinions of members of the bar and the judiciary. Martindale-Hubbell® Peer Review Ratings™ fall into two categories — legal ability and general ethical standards.

Contact Our Attorneys

Bold labels are required.

Contact Information

The use of the Internet or this form for communication with the firm or any individual member of the firm does not establish an attorney-client relationship. Confidential or time-sensitive information should not be sent through this form.


Privacy Policy

Email Us For A Response
Mason & Helmers

Mason & Helmers
332 Minnesota Street
Suite W-3070
St. Paul, MN 55101

Toll Free: 877-389-5533
Phone: 651-323-2548
St. Paul Law Office Map