ESTATE OF MARTIGNACCO
689 N.W.2d 262 (Minn. App. 2004)
NATURE OF THE CASE: Brother of decedent, Rudolph Martignacco (P), and former personal
representative of decedent's estate, challenged a grant of summary judgment in favor of the
biological son of decedent, Robert Reed (D), after the son filed a petition to determine
paternity under Minn. Stat. 524.2-114(2) (2002) of the probate code.
FACTS: D's birth certificate recites that his father is Harold Reed and his mother is
Lucille Reed. Harold and Lucille were married at the time of D's birth. D believed that
Harold Reed was his father. Harold Reed similarly believed that D was his son. In 1989,
after Harold's death, D learned from his mother that Adolph Martignacco was actually his
biological father. D subsequently met Adolph, and the district court found that they
'developed a relationship, [and] spent time together.' Adolph chose not to introduce his son
to his family members. D's very existence came as a complete surprise to the rest of the
family. D's mother, Lucille, submitted an affidavit that explained that D was conceived as a
result of an extramarital affair with Adolph while she was married to Harold. She stated
that Adolph's name was not placed on respondent's birth certificate in order to avoid
embarrassment and humiliation. Adolph died intestate in 2002. During his lifetime he had
never married, nor sired any children other than respondent. At the time of his death, it
was generally believed that decedent was survived only by his three brothers, who expected
to inherit decedent's estate. These assumptions changed when D attended the funeral. P
initiated intestate probate proceedings and filed a petition for formal adjudication of
intestacy, determination of heirs, and appointment of personal representative. D
subsequently filed his objection to the petition and asserted that he was the son of
decedent and decedent's sole surviving heir. The district court appointed P as personal
representative of the estate and otherwise found that decedent's heirs were 'not determined
at this time.' D filed a petition to determine paternity under Minn. Stat. 524.2-114(2)
(2002) of the probate code. D submitted an envelope -- allegedly handled by decedent -- to a
testing lab at Orchid GeneScreen for preliminary genetic testing. Both parties were made
aware of the genetic-test results, which proved decedent's paternity to a 99.99% degree of
certainty. The district court (1) removed P as personal representative of decedent's estate;
(2) appointed D as personal representative of decedent's estate; and (3) ordered the
exhumation of decedent's body for the purposes of further DNA genetic testing. The district
court's order was appealed but was denied discretionary review of that portion of the appeal
pertaining to exhumation of decedent. Decedent's body was exhumed and genetic testing was
performed. Based on those conclusive test results, the parties subsequently stipulated --
and the district court found -- that D is, in fact, the biological child of the decedent.
The parties filed cross motions for summary judgment. The district court granted D's motion
for summary judgment and determined that D was the decedent's sole heir. This appeal follows.
ISSUE:
RULE OF LAW:
HOLDING AND DECISION:
LEGAL ANALYSIS:
Get
free access to the entire content for Mac, PC or Online
for 2-3 days and free samples
of all kinds of products.
for 2-3 days and free samples of all kinds of products.
https://bsmsphd.com
© 2007-2016 Abn Study Partner
No comments:
Post a Comment