Opinion
A20-1492
07-12-2021
In re the Guardianship and Conservatorship of: Virginia Burnette-Crawford.
ORDER OPINION
Hennepin County District Court
File No. 27-GC-PR-18-336 Considered and decided by Cochran, Presiding Judge; Worke, Judge; and Frisch, Judge.
BASED ON THE FILE, RECORD, AND PROCEEDINGS, AND BECAUSE:
1. In July 2019, the district court appointed respondent Dasie Richmond as the guardian of her mother, Virginia Burnette-Crawford, and it appointed respondent Guardian and Conservator Services as Burnette-Crawford's conservator. Later, Richmond petitioned the district court under Minn. Stat. § 524.5-801 (2018) to transfer the guardianship and conservatorship from Minnesota to Mississippi. The district court conditionally granted Richmond's petition pending a provisional order from a Mississippi court accepting the transfer. In a September 2020 order, a Mississippi chancery court issued an interim order accepting the transfer of the guardianship and conservatorship.
2. On October 14, 2020, the Minnesota district court set a hearing on Richmond's petition to confirm the transfer to Mississippi and to terminate the proceedings in Minnesota. The order set the hearing for 8:30 a.m. on Monday, November 16, 2020. That order also required that any objections to the transfer be filed "with the court administrator by 4:30 p.m. on [Friday] November 13, 2020." At 4:48 p.m. on November 13, 2020, appellant Carol Smith, another daughter of Burnette-Crawford, filed an objection to the transfer. District court staff accepted the filing on November 16, 2020 at 8:45 a.m. but rejected the exhibits attached to the filing because they contained confidential information.
3. In her objection, Smith asserted that the September 2020 order issued by the Mississippi chancery court was fraudulent. She styled her objection as a "Motion to Set Aside Order for Provisional Transfer of Guardianship and Conservatorship."
4. By an order dated November 16, 2020, the district court "denied [Smith's motion] for lack of timeliness." The district court also noted that "any issues relating to the establishment of the guardianship and conservatorship in Mississippi are more appropriately determined by the State of Mississippi." Accordingly, the Minnesota district court confirmed the transfer of the guardianship and conservatorship to Mississippi and terminated the Minnesota guardianship and conservatorship. Smith appeals.
5. Smith argues that the district court abused its discretion by rejecting her objection "for lack of timeliness" because under rule 14.03(c) of the Minnesota General Rules of Practice, a document filed by 11:59 p.m. is "deemed filed on that date." She emphasizes that she filed the document on November 13, 2020 at 4:48 p.m. But the district court did not require objections to be filed on November 13, 2020—it required objections to be filed by 4:30 p.m. on November 13, 2020. A district court "has broad discretion to impose deadlines to manage its calendar." TC/Am. Monorail, Inc. v. Custom Conveyor Corp., 840 N.W.2d 414, 418 (Minn. 2013). A district court also has discretion to decide whether to accept a late-filed submission. See Am. Warehousing & Distrib., Inc. v. Michael Ede Mgmt., Inc., 414 N.W.2d 554, 557 (Minn. App. 1987) (holding that the district court was "within its discretion in refusing to consider" a late-filed submission), review dismissed (Minn. Jan. 20, 1988). Because Smith's filing was past the deadline imposed by the district court, Smith has not demonstrated that the district court abused its discretion when it rejected her objection as untimely.
6. In addition, Smith argues that the district court erred when it determined that Smith's allegations of fraud "are more appropriately determined by the State of Mississippi." She contends that the Minnesota district court should have considered her late-filed motion because the Minnesota district court was the proper forum in which to attack the Mississippi chancery court's order. But Smith cites no law to support her position. As the party challenging the district court's order, Smith has the burden to show a basis for reversal. Midway Ctr. Assocs. v. Midway Ctr., Inc., 237 N.W.2d 76, 78 (Minn. 1975). Smith has failed to meet her burden. We further note that Smith is not without a remedy. She can bring a claim before the Mississippi chancery court. See Amresco Residential Mortg. Corp. v. Stange, 631 N.W.2d 444, 445 (Minn. App. 2001) (holding that the district court did not err by dismissing counterclaims where appellants had "an equally valuable, alternate process available to them," because they could raise the counterclaims in a separate proceeding).
7. In sum, Smith has failed to demonstrate that the district court abused its discretion by rejecting her objection as untimely or by concluding that Smith's allegations of fraud are more appropriately determined by a Mississippi court.
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED:
1. The district court's judgment is affirmed.
2. Pursuant to Minn. R. Civ. App. P. 136.01, subd. 1(c), this order opinion is nonprecedential, except as law of the case, res judicata, or collateral estoppel.
Dated: July 12, 2021
BY THE COURT
/s/_________
Judge Jeanne M. Cochran