Filed Date: April 27, 2012
Clearinghouse coding complete
On April 27, 2012, Petitioner, a man whose same-sex spouse had died without a will, filed a petition for formal adjudication of intestacy, determination of heirs, and formal appointment of personal representative in the District Court for the Fourth Judicial District of the State of Minnesota.
Petitioner sought to be recognized as the sole heir of his husband's estate. Petitioner and the deceased had been legally married in another state but moved to Minnesota, which did not recognize their marriage. Under Minnesota law, if the deceased died without a surviving spouse, his assets would go to his next of kin, in this case his parents. Neither the deceased's parents, nor any other party, challenged the petition in this case.
On August 1, 2012, Judge Jay M. Quam issued an order of formal adjudication of intestacy, determination of heirs, and formal appointment of personal representative. In this order, the court could find no provision of the Minnesota Uniform Probate Code that prohibited same-sex partners from being considered a surviving-spouse. This was important because under the Code, a surviving spouse is presumed to inherit the estate of the deceased spouse in the absence of a will. The court also concluded that the Minnesota Defense of Marriage Act only denied contractual rights to same sex couples and did not apply to statutory rights, such as probate rights. The court concluded by granting petitioner's petition, recognizing him as the surviving spouse of the decedent for the limited purposes of intestate succession.
Summary Authors
Patrick Branson (3/30/2015)
Quam, Jay M. (Minnesota)
Potter, David B. (Minnesota)
Last updated Aug. 30, 2023, 1:47 p.m.
Docket sheet not available via the Clearinghouse.State / Territory: Minnesota
Case Type(s):
Public Benefits/Government Services
Special Collection(s):
Key Dates
Filing Date: April 27, 2012
Case Ongoing: No
Plaintiffs
Plaintiff Description:
Man whose same-sex spouse died suddenly, without a will, in a State that does not recognize their legal marriage from another State.
Plaintiff Type(s):
Public Interest Lawyer: No
Filed Pro Se: No
Class Action Sought: No
Class Action Outcome: Not sought
Defendants
Case Details
Causes of Action:
Available Documents:
Outcome
Prevailing Party: Plaintiff
Nature of Relief:
Source of Relief:
Issues
General:
LGBTQ+:
Discrimination-basis: