For most of Minnesota’s history the rule on will execution was unforgiving: get the formalities wrong and the document is not a will, no matter how obviously it captured what the decedent wanted. That is no longer the rule, and the change arrived by an odd route.
Minn. Stat. § 524.2-503 now provides:
(a) If a document or writing added upon a document was not executed in compliance with section 524.2-502, the document or writing is treated as if it had been executed in compliance with section 524.2-502 if the proponent of the document or writing establishes by clear and convincing evidence that the decedent intended the document or writing to constitute:
(1) the decedent’s will;
(2) a partial or complete revocation of the will;
(3) an addition to or an alteration of the will; or
(4) a partial or complete revival of the decedent’s formerly revoked will or of a formerly revoked portion of the will.
(b) This section applies to documents and writings executed on or after March 13, 2020.
That date is not a drafting quirk. Minnesota enacted harmless error in 2020 as a temporary accommodation to a world in which no one could gather two witnesses and a notary in a room. As originally passed, paragraph (b) read “executed on or after March 13, 2020, but before February 15, 2021.” In 2021, the legislature struck the closing date, and the amending section carried its own effective-date clause: “This section is effective retroactively from March 13, 2020, and applies to documents and writings executed on or after March 13, 2020.”
So Minnesota has a permanent harmless-error rule with a hard start date, and it starts at the beginning of the pandemic. A defectively executed document signed in 2018 is still a nullity. The identical document signed in 2021 can be probated.
What harmless error does not do
Three limits deserve emphasis, because § 524.2-503 is frequently oversold.
It does not lower the standard of proof. “Clear and convincing evidence” is the middle standard, and the proponent carries it. The section rescues a document whose intent is clear and whose execution is defective — not a document whose intent is the thing being fought over.
It does not create a holographic will. Section 524.2-502 sets out three requirements and contains no provision validating an unwitnessed handwritten will, unlike the Uniform Probate Code’s § 2-502(b). Harmless error is not a back door to one either: it operates on documents the decedent “intended … to constitute” a will, and a page of handwritten notes that was never intended as a testamentary instrument is not rescued by the section. What harmless error reaches is the will that was meant to be a will and was signed with one witness, or witnessed too late, or missing a signature line.
It does not repeal the formalities. Section 524.2-502 remains the rule, and a will that satisfies it is admitted without a fight. Section 524.2-503 is a litigation remedy, and litigating it costs more than executing correctly ever would.
What does § 524.2-502 actually require?
Less than most people assume. Except as provided in §§ 524.2-506 and 524.2-513, a will must be:
(1) in writing;
(2) signed by the testator or in the testator’s name by some other individual in the testator’s conscious presence and by the testator’s direction or signed by the testator’s conservator pursuant to a court order under section 524.5-411; and
(3) signed by at least two individuals, each of whom signed within a reasonable time after witnessing either the signing of the will as described in clause (2) or the testator’s acknowledgment of that signature or acknowledgment of the will.
Note what clause (3) does not say. It does not require the witnesses to sign in the testator’s presence. It does not require the witnesses to sign in each other’s presence. It does not require the witnesses to see the testator sign — witnessing the testator’s acknowledgment of the signature, or of the will, is enough. And there is no fixed outer limit on when the witnesses must sign; the standard is “within a reasonable time after witnessing.”
That is a much looser statute than the ceremony most firms conduct, and the ceremony is still the right practice — but a will that departed from it is not automatically defective.
One practical qualification on those negatives. The self-proving affidavit forms in § 524.2-504(a) have each witness swear that “each of us, in the presence and hearing of the testator, hereby signs this will as witness to the testator’s signing.” So while § 524.2-502(3) does not itself require the witnesses to sign in the testator’s presence, a firm that wants the conclusive presumption in § 524.3-406(b) should conduct the signing as though it did.
Clause (2) also contains a provision practitioners forget: a conservator may sign the will, on a court order under § 524.5-411. That is a real tool where a protected person has testamentary capacity issues but an estate plan needs to be executed or corrected. It is not self-executing; it requires the order.
Interested witnesses are fine. Section 524.2-505 disposes of the most persistent myth in this area in two sentences: “(a) An individual generally competent to be a witness may act as a witness to a will. (b) The signing of a will by an interested witness does not invalidate the will or any provision of it.” Minnesota has no purging statute. Having a beneficiary witness the will is poor practice — it hands a contestant a fact for the undue influence factors — but it does not void the gift.
The self-proving affidavit is worth more than people think
Section 524.2-504(a) supplies the form: a will may be “contemporaneously executed, attested, and made self-proved, by acknowledgment thereof by the testator and affidavits of the witnesses, each made in the presence of an officer authorized to administer oaths under the laws of the state in which execution occurs and evidenced by the officer’s certificate, under official seal.”
What that buys shows up in § 524.3-406(b):
If the will is self-proved, compliance with signature requirements for execution is conclusively presumed and other requirements of execution are presumed subject to rebuttal without the testimony of any witness upon filing the will and the acknowledgment and affidavits annexed or attached thereto, unless there is proof of fraud or forgery affecting the acknowledgment or affidavit.
“Conclusively presumed” is strong language, and it is doing real work: a contestant cannot litigate whether the signature requirements were met. The remaining execution requirements are presumed but rebuttable. The only way through the conclusive presumption is proof of fraud or forgery affecting the acknowledgment or affidavit itself.
Without a self-proving affidavit, § 524.3-406(a) governs: in a contested case, “the testimony of at least one of the attesting witnesses, if within the state competent and able to testify, is required,” though due execution “may be proved by other evidence, including an affidavit of an attesting witness,” and “[a]n attestation clause that is signed by the attesting witnesses raises a rebuttable presumption that the events recited in the clause occurred.”
An attestation clause is not a self-proving affidavit. It gets a rebuttable presumption; the affidavit gets a conclusive one as to signatures.
The escape hatch: a will valid somewhere else is valid here
Section 524.2-506 is broader than most practitioners realize, and it was amended in 2023:
A will is valid if executed in compliance with section 524.2-502 or if its execution complies with the law at the time of execution of the place where the testator executes the will, or of the law of the place where at the time of execution or at the time of death the testator is domiciled, has a place of abode, or is a national.
Five alternative validating laws, any one of which suffices. A holographic will written and signed in a state that recognizes them is valid in Minnesota even though Minnesota does not recognize holographic wills of its own — the validating law is the place of execution. So is a will executed under the law of the testator’s country of nationality. “Has a place of abode” reaches a Minnesota snowbird’s Arizona condominium.
The practical consequence: before concluding a will is invalid for want of formalities, ask where it was signed, where the testator lived, where the testator kept a second home, and what passport the testator held.
Revocation, revival, and the two presumptions that decide most fights
Section 524.2-507 was amended in 2023, and the change is narrower but more interesting than it looks: the act struck the words “on the will” from paragraph (a)(2) in all three places they appeared, so a revocatory act no longer has to be performed on the will itself. Paragraphs (c) and (d) were not touched. Paragraph (a) recognizes two methods: a later will that revokes “expressly or by inconsistency,” and a revocatory act performed by the testator or “by another individual … in the testator’s conscious presence and by the testator’s direction.” The definition of the act is expansive: “‘revocatory act’ includes burning, tearing, canceling, obliterating, or destroying the will or any part of it. A burning, tearing, or canceling may be a ‘revocatory act,’ whether or not the burn, tear, or cancellation touched any of the words on the will.”
Where a later will is silent about the earlier one, paragraphs (c) and (d) supply a pair of mirror-image presumptions, both rebuttable only by clear and convincing evidence:
- If the later will “makes a complete disposition of the testator’s estate,” the testator is presumed to have intended it to replace the earlier will, and “only the subsequent will is operative on the testator’s death.”
- If the later will “does not make a complete disposition,” the testator is presumed to have intended it to supplement, and it revokes the earlier will “only to the extent the subsequent will is inconsistent”; both are then “fully operative on the testator’s death to the extent they are not inconsistent.”
That is the whole codicil-versus-new-will question resolved by whether the second document disposes of everything.
Revival under § 524.2-509 is not automatic and its default flips depending on how much the second will revoked. Where the second will wholly revoked the first and the second is then destroyed, “the previous will remains revoked unless it is revived” — and revival requires that it be “evident from the circumstances of the revocation … or from the testator’s contemporary or subsequent declarations that the testator intended the previous will to take effect as executed.” Where the second will only partly revoked the first, the presumption reverses: the revoked part “is revived unless it is evident” that the testator did not so intend. Where the second will is revoked by a third will rather than by act, § 524.2-509(c) looks only to “the terms of the later will.”
The list you can change without a lawyer
Two provisions let a will reach outside itself.
Section 524.2-510 is the general one: “Any writing in existence when a will is executed may be incorporated by reference if the language of the will manifests this intent and describes the writing sufficiently to permit its identification.” Note “in existence when a will is executed” — this cannot reach a document written later.
Section 524.2-513 is the exception that can, and it is the most useful clause in most estate plans. 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.” To be admissible, “the writing must be referred to in the will, must be either in the handwriting of the testator or be signed by the testator, and must describe the items and the devisees with reasonable certainty.”
Then the flexibility: “The writing may be referred to as one to be in existence at the time of the testator’s death; it may be prepared before or after the execution of the will; it may be altered by the testator after its preparation; and it may be a writing which has no significance apart from its effect upon the dispositions made by the will.” Where there are competing lists, “the most recent writing controls the disposition of the item.”
So the client can revise who gets the china for the next thirty years without re-executing anything — provided the will refers to the list, the list is handwritten or signed, and the items are described with reasonable certainty. The exclusions matter: money and coin collections are out, and so is business property. And the § 524.2-403 exempt property selection and a § 525.152 sentimental-value petition can still reach items on the list.
Practical takeaways
- A pre-March 13, 2020 will has no harmless-error safety net. If a client executed a will before that date under circumstances that were irregular — a missing witness, a signature added later — re-executing it now is cheap insurance, and it moves the document inside § 524.2-503.
- Always self-prove. The conclusive presumption in § 524.3-406(b) is the single highest-value paragraph in Minnesota will practice.
- Before writing off an invalid will, run § 524.2-506. Place of execution, measured at the time of execution; and domicile, place of abode, or nationality, measured either at execution or at death.
- Do not let a beneficiary witness, even though § 524.2-505(b) says it does not matter. It matters to a jury.
- Use the § 524.2-513 list, and tell the client in writing what it cannot cover.
- Where a will is being challenged rather than construed, the burdens are allocated by statute and they are not what most people expect — see who has to prove what in a Minnesota will contest.
Madgett Law, LLC
We draft, execute, and defend Minnesota wills, and we litigate the ones whose execution is in question — pressing or resisting a § 524.2-503 harmless-error petition, establishing due execution where the attesting witnesses are gone, and running the § 524.2-506 choice-of-law analysis on a will signed somewhere else. If you are holding a Minnesota will that may not have been signed correctly, call 612-470-6529 or send us a message.
Sources: Minn. Stat. § 524.2-501 (any person 18 or more years of age who is of sound mind may make a will). Minn. Stat. § 524.2-502(1)–(3) (writing; signature by the testator, by another in the testator’s conscious presence and by direction, or by a conservator under a § 524.5-411 court order; two witnesses each signing within a reasonable time after witnessing the signing or the testator’s acknowledgment of the signature or of the will; no holographic-will provision). Minn. Stat. § 524.2-503 — para. (a)(1)–(4) (harmless error; clear and convincing evidence of the decedent’s intent as to a will, a revocation, an addition or alteration, or a revival), para. (b) (applies to documents and writings executed on or after March 13, 2020). Minn. Stat. § 524.2-504(a) (self-proved will; contemporaneous execution, attestation, and self-proof by the testator’s acknowledgment and the witnesses’ affidavits before an officer authorized to administer oaths, evidenced by the officer’s certificate under official seal). Minn. Stat. § 524.2-505(a)–(b) (an individual generally competent to be a witness may witness; an interested witness does not invalidate the will or any provision of it). Minn. Stat. § 524.2-506 (validating laws: § 524.2-502; the law of the place of execution at the time of execution; or the law of the place where, at execution or at death, the testator is domiciled, has a place of abode, or is a national). Minn. Stat. § 524.2-507 — para. (a)(1)–(2) (revocation by subsequent will or by revocatory act, including a burning, tearing, or cancellation that did not touch any words), para. (c) (presumption of replacement where the later will makes a complete disposition; rebuttable by clear and convincing evidence), para. (d) (presumption of supplementation where it does not). Minn. Stat. § 524.2-509 — para. (a) (previous will remains revoked unless revival is evident), para. (b) (partly revoked part is revived unless the contrary is evident), para. (c) (revocation by a later will; revival to the extent it appears from the terms of the later will). Minn. Stat. § 524.2-510 (incorporation by reference of a writing in existence when the will is executed). Minn. Stat. § 524.2-513 (separate writing for tangible personal property; exclusion of money, coin collections, and property used in trade or business; handwriting-or-signature and reasonable-certainty requirements; may be prepared before or after execution and altered afterward; most recent writing controls). Minn. Stat. § 524.3-406 — para. (a) (testimony of at least one attesting witness required in contested cases for a non-self-proved will; attestation clause raises a rebuttable presumption), para. (b) (self-proved will; compliance with signature requirements conclusively presumed, other execution requirements presumed subject to rebuttal, absent proof of fraud or forgery affecting the acknowledgment or affidavit). Session law: § 524.2-503 was enacted by 2020 Minn. Laws ch. 74, art. 1, § 2 with paragraph (b) limited to documents executed on or after March 13, 2020 “but before February 15, 2021”; that closing limitation was struck by 2021 Minn. Laws 1st Spec. Sess. ch. 11, art. 3, § 27, which amended Minnesota Statutes 2020, section 524.2-503, and which carries an effective-date clause reading “This section is effective retroactively from March 13, 2020, and applies to documents and writings executed on or after March 13, 2020.” The struck language was verified against the enrolled text of the act. Section 524.2-506 was amended by 2023 Minn. Laws ch. 21, § 3, and § 524.2-507 by 2023 Minn. Laws ch. 21, § 4, per the sections’ History lines. Session law detail: 2023 Minn. Laws ch. 21, § 4, amended § 524.2-507 only by striking “on the will” from paragraph (a)(2) in each of the three places it appeared; the enrolled text shows no changes to paragraphs (b), (c), or (d). Statutory text retrieved from the Minnesota Office of the Revisor of Statutes (2025 edition) and from the enrolled session law; no pending-amendment banner appeared on any section cited. Bold emphasis within quoted statutory text is added. No case law is cited in this article. This article is general legal information about Minnesota law, not legal advice, and reading it does not create an attorney–client relationship. Whether a particular document satisfies § 524.2-502, or can be saved under § 524.2-503, is a fact question. No outcome is promised or implied.