Petition for instruction from the probate court as to the sale of decedent’s property; Personal representative (PR)

The court held that the probate court did not abuse its discretion in allowing petitioner-PR to amend the purchase agreement for the decedent’s farm. Respondent-Mietalka was one of the decedent’s children. She sought to purchase the farm for $650,000 in cash. A group of the decedent’s other children also sought to purchase it. They eventually formed an LLC (Mata Farm) to do so. The PR petitioned for instruction from the probate court as to the competing offers and a related request to amend the purchase agreement on the Mata Farm offer. The probate court entered an order permitting the PR to amend the purchase agreement and add one of the decedent’s children (C) “as an individual party, with the condition that the closing date be no later than 30 days from the date of the order.” Mietalka appealed. The court found no error in the probate court’s decision. It noted that “both parties were ultimately able to purchase the property for $650,000 in cash, that petitioner and Mata Farm addressed the necessary repairs to the property, that Mietalka’s offer required payment of the realtor’s commission by the estate, and that several of decedent’s children were involved with Mata Farm.” It concluded that Mietalka “failed to show any abuse of discretion in the probate court’s decision to allow petitioner to amend the purchase agreement to add [C] as an individual party and to afford Mata Farm and [C] a 30-day window to purchase the property. Both Mietalka and Mata Farm made reasonable offers, which were for more than the appraised value of the property and were from members of decedent’s family. In light of the large number of decedent’s living children that would have access to the property and the overall amount the estate would receive from the purchase, the probate court’s decision in favor of Mata Farm did not fall outside the range of principled outcomes; that does not change simply because an outcome in favor of Mietalka might also have been reasonable.”