A Minnesota inheritance dispute over a 300-acre farm has taken another turn after an appeals court reversed a lower court’s decision to reopen a deceased farmer’s estate, years after a second will surfaced. In a September 8, 2026, ruling, the Minnesota Court of Appeals held that a court’s failure to meet a statutory requirement for medical-assistance claims clearance did not deprive it of the authority to decide the estate case. The decision restored the legal standing of a 2017 property decree that had been set aside, according to the court’s published opinion in In re the Estate of Clarence Vatthauer.
The case centres on two wills signed by Clarence Vatthauer, who owned and farmed approximately 300 acres of productive farmland and cattle pasture in Red Lake County, Minnesota. His 1982 will gave his wife, Fern Vatthauer, the right to use the property during her lifetime, with the remainder passing to their son, David Vatthauer. A second will, executed in 1989, revoked the earlier document and left the land to Fern outright. Clarence died in 2005. In 2015, David petitioned the district court to distribute his father’s estate and submitted the 1982 will. The court issued a decree of descent in 2017, establishing property ownership according to that document.
The competing documents eventually triggered a family dispute over who was entitled to inherit the property. At the time, the record did not indicate that any family member knew about the later will. David had also not filed a clearance for medical-assistance claims against his father’s estate, a statutory requirement for a court to issue a decree of descent.
The dispute resurfaced after Clarence’s daughter, Julie Ford, was appointed guardian of Fern in 2022 as her health declined. Ford contacted the law firm that had handled her parents’ estate planning and discovered the 1989 wills executed by both Clarence and Fern. Fern’s own 1989 will directed that her property be distributed equally among her children. Ford sought to have the earlier decree vacated and Clarence’s 1989 will admitted to probate. Fern died in October 2023. The district court subsequently ordered the two 1989 wills probated, vacated the 2017 decree and ruled that the farm had passed to Fern outright before being distributed equally among her surviving children under her will.
Because the court had issued it without the required clearance for medical-assistance claims, she argued that the 2017 decree was void. Clarence’s later will changed the inheritance arrangement substantially. Instead of giving Fern a lifetime interest followed by ownership passing to David, it gave her the farm outright. She also argued that exceptional circumstances justified reopening the case.