A trustee walks into a branch to retitle an account. The banker asks for the trust. Not the certificate. The trust, all of it, every page, including the schedule that says what each child gets and the paragraph explaining why one of them gets less.
Minnesota built a document for exactly this problem. A certificate of trust under Minn. Stat. § 501C.1013 is a short, sworn document that proves what a counterparty legitimately needs to know (the trust exists, who the trustees are, what they may do, how many must sign) and proves it, by statute, “as though the full trust instrument had been recorded or presented.”
Most write-ups skip the second half, and it’s the half I want you to have. Section 501C.1013 imposes no penalty on a person who refuses to accept a valid certificate. No damages. No attorney fees. No cause of action. I’ve read all six subdivisions looking for one, and there’s nothing there. That should change how you approach the branch manager. Threats don’t work. What works is showing them that taking the certificate is safer than refusing it.
Who can sign one, and what goes in it
Subdivision 1 answers the first question in its first sentence:
The settlor or a trustee of a trust, at any time after execution or creation of a trust, may execute a certificate of trust that sets forth fewer than all of the provisions of a trust instrument and any amendments to the instrument.
Either the settlor or a trustee may sign it, so a successor trustee doesn’t need the settlor’s cooperation. It may be signed at any time after the trust is created, so it can be prepared long after the estate plan was signed, and by a different lawyer. And the statute states its defining feature head-on: it sets forth fewer than all of the provisions. Showing only part of the trust is the design. It isn’t a shortcut.
The contents are six items, and every one is mandatory. Section 501C.1013, subd. 1 provides that the certificate “must include”:
- The name of the trust, if one is given;
- The date of the trust instrument;
- The name and address of each trustee empowered to act under the trust instrument at the time the certificate is executed;
- Either (i) the statutory sentence — “The trustees are authorized by the trust instrument to sell, convey, pledge, mortgage, lease, or transfer title to any interest in real or personal property, except as limited by the following: (if none, so indicate)” — or (ii) “information as to the powers of the trustee relating to the purposes for which the certificate is being offered”;
- The number of trustees required to act; and
- A statement as to whether the trust has terminated or the trust instrument has been revoked.
Item 4 does the real work, and option (ii) is why the certificate is built for the job instead of being a form. A certificate offered to open a brokerage account can describe the trustee’s investment and account powers and say nothing else. It doesn’t have to recite the power to sell real property, and it sure doesn’t have to recite who takes the residue.
Subdivision 1 closes with two requirements that give the certificate its weight as evidence:
The certificate of trust must be upon the representation of the settlor or trustee that the statements contained in the certificate of trust are true and correct and that there are no other provisions in the trust instrument or amendments to it that limit (i) the powers of the trustees to sell, convey, pledge, mortgage, lease, or transfer title to interests in real or personal property or (ii) the authority of the trustees to exercise any other power identified in the certificate of trust. The signature of the settlor or trustee must be under oath before a notary public or other official authorized to administer oaths.
That negative representation (there are no other provisions that limit these powers) is what makes the certificate worth something to a counterparty, and what makes it dangerous to sign carelessly. A trustee who certifies unlimited sale authority while the instrument requires a co-trustee’s consent has sworn to something false under oath. Before I let a trustee sign one, I read the representation against the actual instrument, every time.
The sentence to quote at the counter
Subdivision 4 is the effect provision:
When a certificate of trust is recorded in a county where real property is situated, or in the case of personal property, when it is presented to a third party, the certificate of trust serves to document the existence of the trust, the identity of the trustees, the powers of the trustees and any limitations on those powers, and other matters the certificate of trust sets out, as though the full trust instrument had been recorded or presented. Until amended or revoked under subdivision 5, or until the full trust instrument is recorded or presented, a certificate of trust is prima facie proof as to matters contained in it and any party may rely upon the continued effectiveness of the certificate, and the subsequent revocation or amendment of a certificate of trust shall not affect transactions entered into in reliance on a prior certificate of trust.
The last clause, protecting transactions entered into in reliance on a prior certificate against later revocation or amendment, is new. It was added to subdivision 4 by 2025 Minn. Laws ch. 15, § 18 (S.F. No. 571, signed May 6, 2025). If you’re working from an older form or an older annotation, check it.
Subdivision 6 adds the other half of the protection in one sentence: “A third party may rely upon a certificate of trust signed by any settlor or trustee.” That sits on top of Minn. Stat. § 501C.1012(a)–(b), under which a person other than a beneficiary who in good faith and for value deals with a trustee, without knowledge that the trustee is exceeding or improperly exercising the trustee’s powers, “is protected from liability as if the trustee properly exercised the power,” and “is not required to inquire into the extent of the trustee’s powers or the propriety of their exercise.”
Put those three provisions together and the institution demanding the full trust instrument is hard to defend on its own terms. It isn’t required to inquire. It may rely. And what it’s being handed has the statutory effect of the whole document.
Can a third party still insist on more?
Yes, in the practical sense. And this is the point I see overstated most often.
Nothing in § 501C.1013 prohibits a third party from asking for excerpts or for the full instrument. The section doesn’t address the recipient’s conduct at all. It authorizes the certificate, prescribes its contents, describes its effect, and permits reliance on it. It doesn’t say a person “may not require” the trust instrument, and it creates no remedy against one who does. Look at the words in subdivision 4, too: the certificate is “prima facie proof,” and its effect runs “[u]ntil … the full trust instrument is recorded or presented.” Prima facie proof can be rebutted.
So where’s the leverage? Not a penalty. It’s the fact that the refusing party has nothing to gain. Its exposure for dealing with a trustee who lacked authority is already extinguished by §§ 501C.1013, subds. 4 and 6, and 501C.1012 the moment it accepts a facially valid certificate. Demanding the dispositive terms buys no protection the statutes haven’t already given. All it does is create a privacy problem for the customer and a delay for the deal. Have that conversation in writing, with the person who has authority, not the person at the counter.
Certificate of trust versus affidavit of trustee
Minnesota offers a second, companion document at Minn. Stat. § 501C.1014, and its effect as evidence isn’t the same.
| Certificate of trust (§ 501C.1013) | Affidavit of trustee (§ 501C.1014) | |
|---|---|---|
| Who executes | Settlor or a trustee (subd. 1) | The trustee or trustees (subds. 1, 2) |
| Form | Six required contents, prose (subd. 1) | Statutory form, set out in full in the statute (subds. 1, 2) |
| Effect | Prima facie proof of matters contained in it; party may rely (subd. 4) | “The proof is conclusive as to any party relying on the affidavit,” except a party dealing directly with the trustee who has actual knowledge of facts to the contrary — but subd. 3 confers this on an affidavit “under subdivision 1 or 2,” and was not amended when subd. 5 was added |
| What it proves | Existence, trustees, powers and limits, other matters set out | Six enumerated facts including trust validity, non-revocation, that the powers extend to the described property, no limiting amendment, requisite trustees signed, and any necessary court approval obtained (subd. 3) |
| Recording | May be recorded if executed under subd. 2 (subd. 3) | May be recorded, separately or combined with or attached to the certificate or trust instrument (subd. 4) |
| Personal property | Presented to a third party (subd. 4) | Since 2025, may be used for a personal property transaction in substantially the subd. 1 or 2 form (subd. 5) |
That difference between “prima facie” and “conclusive” is the most useful thing in this corner of Minnesota practice, and I almost never hear anyone mention it to clients. Where a counterparty is genuinely nervous (a title company, a lender, a closer), my answer often isn’t to argue about the certificate. It’s to hand over a certificate and a trustee’s affidavit under § 501C.1014, because the affidavit’s proof is conclusive as to a relying party.
Read that last sentence with its limit in view, because the statute has a seam in it. Section 501C.1014 is captioned “Affidavit of Trustee in Real Property Transactions,” and the conclusive-proof sentence lives in subdivision 3, which by its terms governs “[a]n affidavit by the trustee or trustees under subdivision 1 or 2.” Two of the six things that affidavit proves are tied to “the real property described in the affidavit.” So where the deal is a conveyance or a mortgage, the conclusive-proof point is squarely available and worth making.
Note the 2025 addition, and note what it didn’t do. Section 501C.1014, subd. 5, added by 2025 Minn. Laws ch. 15, § 19, extends the affidavit form to personal property transactions, as long as the affidavit describes the personal property and includes the enumerated paragraphs of the subdivision 1 or 2 form. Before that amendment the statutory affidavit was framed around real property, so the bank account problem now has a form answer where it used to have none.
Whether it also has a conclusive-proof answer is an open question. The 2025 act added subdivision 5 by adding a subdivision. It didn’t amend subdivision 3. Subdivision 3 still gives conclusive effect to an affidavit “under subdivision 1 or 2,” and a subdivision 5 affidavit is one that “may be substantially in the form of the affidavit provided in subdivision 1 or 2” — and that’s a statement about form, not a statement that the affidavit is given under those subdivisions. Notice that subdivision 5 tells you to change the property reference in the form to the personal property described, but nothing makes the matching change in subdivision 3’s list of proofs. So the better practice is to argue the point instead of assuming it, and not to tell a bank the affidavit’s proof is conclusive as though that were settled. I’ve found no Minnesota decision construing the interaction.
Certificates used for real property have extra requirements
A certificate good enough for a brokerage account isn’t automatically good enough to record. Subdivision 2 imposes its own contents:
If so used, the certificate of trust shall identify the name of each settlor and the name of each original trustee and shall contain the following statement: “The trustees are authorized by the instrument to sell, convey, pledge, mortgage, lease, or transfer title to any interest in real property, except as limited by the following: (if none, so indicate).”
Two traps live in that sentence.
The trustee list is different. Subdivision 1(3) requires the name and address of each trustee empowered to act at the time of execution of the certificate. Subdivision 2 requires the name (no address) of each original trustee. A certificate signed by a successor twenty years on satisfies subdivision 1 and fails subdivision 2 unless it also names the original.
Option (ii) is off the table. A certificate using subdivision 1(4)(ii) — powers “relating to the purposes for which the certificate is being offered” — doesn’t contain the sentence subdivision 2 requires. For a real property transaction the statutory statement is mandatory.
Subdivision 3 then permits a certificate executed under subdivision 2 to be recorded with the county recorder for any county, or with the registrar of titles as to registered land described in the certificate or any attachment. Where the trust holds Minnesota real estate (see putting your house in a trust and the unfunded revocable trust), this is the step that puts the trust’s authority in the chain of title without putting the dispositive terms into the public record.
Amending or revoking a certificate
Subdivision 5 is short, and its notice rule is strict. Amendment or revocation “may be made only by a written instrument executed by the settlor or a trustee,” and it “is not effective as to a party unless that party has actual notice” of it. Actual notice means the party has received the written instrument, or, for real property, either the party received it or it was recorded, with the legal description, in the county where the property is situated.
The practical instruction is boring and it matters. When trustees change, go back to every institution holding a certificate. Recording takes care of the real property side. Nothing takes care of the personal property side except delivery. An old certificate in a bank’s file stays effective against that bank until the bank actually receives the revocation, and under the 2025 addition to subdivision 4, transactions already entered into in reliance on it are protected regardless. That’s a standing exposure for a trust whose former trustee left on bad terms, which I take up in removing a trustee in Minnesota.
What I tell each seat at the table
If you’re the trustee. Prepare the certificate before you need it, tailor item 4 to the transaction instead of reciting boilerplate powers, and read the negative representation in subdivision 1 against the actual instrument before you swear to it. If the counterparty balks, send a short letter citing subdivisions 4 and 6 and § 501C.1012, offer a § 501C.1014 affidavit, and go over the branch’s head. Don’t lead with a demand for damages the statute doesn’t provide.
If you’re the institution. Accepting a facially valid certificate is the protected move, not the risky one. The statutes give you reliance, prima facie proof, and no duty to inquire. If you want more, ask for the affidavit under § 501C.1014, whose proof is conclusive in the real property transactions the section is written for.
If you’re drafting the estate plan. Prepare the certificate with the plan instead of leaving it to a successor trustee who’s never read the instrument, and tell the client what it’s for. Beneficiaries have a statutory right to information about the trust. Banks don’t, and that’s worth explaining once, in advance. I cover the beneficiary side of that line in a Minnesota trustee’s duty to inform beneficiaries.
The certificate of trust is a small statute that fixes a real privacy problem and fixes it well: the counterparty gets what it needs, the family’s dispositive terms stay private, and the deal closes. What it won’t do is punish the institution that won’t read it. Know that going in. The trustee who walks in threatening a remedy the statute doesn’t contain loses credibility on the one point that would have moved the file: the bank is already protected, and has been since the moment the certificate crossed the counter.
Madgett Law, LLC prepares Minnesota certificates of trust and trustee affidavits, and represents trustees whose institutions won’t accept them. If a bank, lender, or title company is holding up a transaction over the trust instrument, that’s usually a two-document problem. Send us a message or call 612-470-6529.
Sources: Minn. Stat. § 501C.1013 (certificate of trust — subd. 1, who may execute, the “fewer than all of the provisions” design, the six required contents including the alternative power statements at clause (4)(i)–(ii), the settlor’s or trustee’s representation that no other provisions limit the stated powers, and the requirement of signature under oath before a notary public; subd. 2, the additional contents required when the certificate is used for a real property transaction, including each settlor and each original trustee and the prescribed statement; subd. 3, recording with the county recorder or registrar of titles; subd. 4, the certificate’s effect as though the full trust instrument had been recorded or presented, its status as prima facie proof, reliance on continued effectiveness, and the protection of transactions entered into in reliance on a prior certificate; subd. 5, amendment or revocation only by written instrument and only effective on actual notice, and the definition of actual notice; subd. 6, a third party may rely upon a certificate signed by any settlor or trustee. The section contains no provision imposing damages, attorney fees, or any other consequence on a person who refuses to accept a certificate); Minn. Stat. § 501C.1014 (affidavit of trustee — subds. 1 and 2, statutory forms for inter vivos and testamentary trusts; subd. 3, applicable by its terms to “[a]n affidavit by the trustee or trustees under subdivision 1 or 2,” the six matters proved — two of which are tied to “the real property described in the affidavit” — and the statement that “[t]he proof is conclusive as to any party relying on the affidavit, except a party dealing directly with the trustee or trustees who has actual knowledge of facts to the contrary”; subd. 4, recording; subd. 5, use in personal property transactions in substantially the subd. 1 or 2 form; and the fact that 2025 Minn. Laws ch. 15, § 19 added subd. 5 without amending subd. 3); Minn. Stat. § 501C.1012(a)–(b) (protection of a person dealing with a trustee in good faith and for value, and the absence of a duty to inquire into the extent of the trustee’s powers); 2025 Minn. Laws ch. 15, §§ 18–19 (S.F. No. 571, signed May 6, 2025 — amending § 501C.1013, subd. 4 to add the reliance-protection clause, and adding § 501C.1014, subd. 5) (Minnesota Office of the Revisor of Statutes). This article is general legal information about Minnesota law, not legal advice, and reading it does not create an attorney–client relationship. No outcome is promised or implied.