The District Court denied Bell State`s request for a summary decision, granted Timothy Brakkes` request to amend his application and approved the transaction. The court ruled that Timothy Brakke could file the petition because he was a third party beneficiary under the alleged verbal agreement that Rerick would receive half of Bradley Brakke`s estate and because Rerick entrusted him with his interest in the estate. The court also allowed Timothy Brakke to amend his petition to specifically challenge the 2014 Trust, as the underlying facts did not leave an error in his original petition to challenge the Trust as a means of restoring the 2009 will. The court found that the amendment was related to the original petition. The court .C.C 59-09-11, a provision of the Uniform Trust Code with respect to out-of-court transactions, did not rule on the proposed transaction in the ongoing court proceedings. Instead, the court applied the uniform test code, N.D.C.C. . The tribunal also found that the transaction did not thwart a core objective of Bradley Brakkes Trust, as the underlying litigation called into question its ability to create the trust.  Bell State argues that the transaction agreement did not yield a fair and reasonable result.  Our analysis of the District Court`s consent to the transaction contract requires consideration of the interaction of the Uniform Trust Code orders in N.D.C.C. chs. 59-09 to 59-19 and uniform test code in N.D.C.C.
tit. 30.1. The rules for out-of-court settlement agreements for Minnesota trusts changed significantly on January 1, 2016, when the new Minnesota trust code came into effect. The law, which generally reflects the uniform trust code, has modernized the state`s fiduciary law, provides more structure and flexibility for trusts, and reconciles Minnesota with national trends. One of the main changes relates to the type of cases that can be included in a binding out-of-court settlement agreement.  Bell State Bank-Trust, as trustee of Bradley K. Brakke Trust, appeals a judgment authorizing a transaction and rejects Timothy Brakke`s petition challenging Bradley Brakke`s ability to create the trust. We conclude that the District Court did not displeasure by accepting the transaction agreement and rejecting Timothy Brakke`s application.
We confirm the verdict.  Timothy Brakkes` underlying petition in that case involved a challenge to Bradley Brakke`s ability to create the Trust in connection with a family agreement claimed on the disposition of the land. The settlement agreement is the settlement of this dispute by a limited number of family members, without further legal proceedings.