Minnesota’s will-execution statute is strict: a will must be in writing, signed, and witnessed by at least two individuals. Minn. Stat. § 524.2-502. But read the opening clause of that section — “Except as provided in sections 524.2-506 and 524.2-513” — and you find the Probate Code naming its own escape hatch before it states the rule. Section 524.2-513 lets a plain piece of paper, with no witnesses, no notary, and no date requirement, decide who gets the cabin furniture, the shotgun, the wedding china, and the guitar. You can write it at the kitchen table, and you can rewrite it next year without calling me.
There is a catch, of course. Three of them, and a one-sentence prerequisite that has to be in the will itself. In short, the list is the cheapest, most flexible instrument in Minnesota estate planning — and it only works if you build it exactly the way the statute says.
What the statute says
A will may refer to a written statement or list to dispose of items of tangible personal property not otherwise specifically disposed of by the will, other than money and coin collections, and property used in trade or business.
Minn. Stat. § 524.2-513. To be admissible as evidence of the intended disposition, the writing must clear three requirements, each straight from the text:
- It must be referred to in the will. No reference, no list. This is the prerequisite people miss — the statute does not enforce a freestanding list found in a desk drawer after death. The will has to open the door with a sentence along the lines of: I may leave a written statement or list disposing of items of tangible personal property, and I direct that any such writing be given effect under Minn. Stat. § 524.2-513. One sentence, drafted once, and the door stays open for every list you ever write afterward.
- It must be either in your handwriting or signed by you. A typed list you never signed fails. A handwritten list you never signed survives. Sign it anyway — the handwriting route invites a fight over whose handwriting it is.
- It must describe the items and the devisees with reasonable certainty. “My watch to my nephew” is a lawsuit if you own three watches and have two nephews. “My 1968 Omega Speedmaster to my nephew Daniel J. Carter” is a disposition.
And then the statute hands you the flexibility that makes the whole device worth using: the writing “may be prepared before or after the execution of the will,” “may be altered by the testator after its preparation,” and may have no significance apart from its effect on the will’s dispositions. You never re-execute anything. The will is signed once, with witnesses; the list evolves for the rest of your life.
What can never go on the list
The exclusions are short, specific, and one of them surprises everyone:
- Money. The list disposes of things, not dollars. “$5,000 to my niece” on a tangible personal property list is a nullity — cash bequests belong in the will.
- Coin collections. This is the trap. Minnesota’s statute excludes coin collections by name, and a coin collection is precisely the kind of heirloom people most want to leave on an informal list. Grandfather’s Morgan dollars have to pass through the will itself.
- Property used in trade or business. The shop equipment, the work truck, the dental practice’s chairs — out. Business assets take the formal route.
Notice what is not on the exclusion list: securities. But do not read that as an invitation. The statute reaches only “items of tangible personal property,” and I read a stock certificate or a brokerage account as falling outside that phrase at the threshold — the paper is not the property; it merely evidences intangible rights. Shares, accounts, and anything that lives as an entry in a ledger belong in the will or a beneficiary designation, not on the list.
What about the boat with a title?
The question I get at every estate-planning meeting, in some form. A boat, a car, a trailer, a snowmobile — tangible, personal, and registered with the state under a certificate of title.
The statute contains no exclusion for titled property. Its exclusion list is money, coin collections, and trade-or-business property — full stop — and a fishing boat is an item of tangible personal property by any ordinary reading. So the list can dispose of it. What the list cannot do is transfer it: § 524.2-513 makes the writing admissible “as evidence of the intended disposition,” which means the personal representative still has to run the title work with the state to move the boat into the devisee’s name. The list tells the personal representative where the boat goes; it is not itself the transfer document. Expect paperwork, not a fight — but if the asset is valuable enough that the title work matters, consider whether it belongs in the will as a specific devise instead.
Why the list beats a codicil
Before 2-513, changing your mind about the china meant a codicil — and a codicil is a will amendment that demands every formality of § 524.2-502: writing, signature, and two witnesses, usually in a lawyer’s conference room at a lawyer’s rates. Compare the paths:
| Separate writing (§ 524.2-513) | Codicil to the will | |
|---|---|---|
| Witnesses | None | Two, per § 524.2-502 |
| Lawyer needed | No | In practice, yes |
| Change it later | Rewrite the list at home | Execute another codicil |
| Can carry cash bequests | No | Yes |
| Can carry coin collections, business property | No | Yes |
For the belongings the statute covers, the list wins on every line that matters. I have seen more family fights over tangible property — the rings, the rifles, the photographs — than over money, because things carry meaning that dollars do not and because wills so often dispose of them in one residuary lump. A current, specific, signed list is the cheapest fight-prevention device Minnesota law offers.
When lists collide — and when the will wins
Two priority rules, both from the text. First, the will always beats the list: the statute reaches only property “not otherwise specifically disposed of by the will.” If your will specifically devises the Steinway to your daughter, no list can send it elsewhere — amending that gift takes a codicil.
Second, the statute expressly permits multiple writings, and “if an item of tangible personal property is disposed of to different persons by different writings, the most recent writing controls the disposition of the item.” § 524.2-513. That rule is why I tell every client to date every list, even though the statute nowhere requires a date. The most-recent-controls rule is only as good as your proof of which writing is most recent. Two undated lists giving the same shotgun to two different grandsons is exactly the litigation this statute exists to prevent.
So the maintenance protocol is simple: one list, dated, signed, replaced in its entirety whenever you change your mind, with the old version destroyed. The statute tolerates sloppier practice; your family should not have to.
What the list cannot fix
The list rides on the will — it is not a substitute for one. Die without a valid will and there is no will for the list to be “referred to in”; the belongings pass with everything else under the intestacy statutes, in shares your list has no power to change. I cover that default order in who inherits when there is no will. And if the will itself has an execution defect, the list’s fate is tied to whether the will can be saved — Minnesota’s harmless-error doctrine, covered in when a defective will can still be probated, becomes the whole ballgame.
Nor does the list decide everything personal. Your funeral, burial, and cremation instructions run through an entirely different statute with its own priority ladder — see who controls your remains under § 149A.80. And the list changes nothing about process: the estate still administers through probate where required, formal or informal — the choice I map in informal vs. formal probate — though for small estates the belongings may move by small estate affidavit without a court file at all.
Madgett Law, LLC
Madgett Law, LLC drafts Minnesota wills built to carry a § 524.2-513 personal property list — the enabling clause in the will, a properly structured first list, and a one-page protocol for updating it — along with the rest of the estate plan. If your current will lacks the reference sentence, adding it is a modest fix that buys decades of flexibility. Call 612-470-6529 or send us a message.
Sources: Minn. Stat. § 524.2-513 (separate writing may dispose of tangible personal property not otherwise specifically disposed of by the will; exclusions for money, coin collections, and property used in trade or business; requirements that the writing be referred to in the will, be in the testator’s handwriting or signed by the testator, and describe items and devisees with reasonable certainty; writing may be prepared before or after the will and altered after preparation; admissible “as evidence of the intended disposition”; multiple writings permitted with the most recent controlling); Minn. Stat. § 524.2-502 (will execution — writing, signature, two witnesses; opening exception clause naming §§ 524.2-506 and 524.2-513), both verified at revisor.mn.gov.
This article is general legal information about Minnesota law. It is not legal advice, it does not create an attorney–client relationship, and no particular outcome is promised or implied. Whether a particular writing qualifies under § 524.2-513 depends on the will and the writing themselves.