Opinion
A23-1477
06-27-2024
Cherrity Honesty-Alexis Meranelli, Appellant, v. Jolieene Anne Wright, Respondent.
Carlton County District Court File No. 09-CV-23-1309
Considered and decided by Cochran, Presiding Judge; Wheelock, Judge; and Ede, Judge.
ORDER OPINION
Sarah I. Wheelock Judge
BASED ON THE FILE, RECORD, AND PROCEEDINGS, AND BECAUSE:
1. Appellant Cherrity Honesty-Alexis Meranelli appeals the district court's denial of her application to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP) based on its finding that her complaint is frivolous. She argues that her complaint is not frivolous and that she is entitled to a remand for further findings because the district court's findings are insufficient to permit appellate review.
2. In May 2023, Meranelli filed a complaint against respondent Jolieene Anne Wright for breach of contract and applied to proceed IFP. Meranelli alleged in her complaint that Wright had been in breach of the contract for "12 years, 3 weeks, and 4 days." The district court issued a form order denying Meranelli's IFP application as frivolous and later issued another order explaining that Meranelli's complaint failed to present a "viable claim," in part because the six-year statute of limitations on her claim had run. We infer from the second order that the reason the district court believed Meranelli's claim to be frivolous was that it fell outside the six-year statute-of-limitations period.
3. A district court may deny an application to proceed IFP if it determines that the action is frivolous. Minn. Stat. § 563.01, subd. 3(b) (2022). A district court has broad discretion to deny an IFP application, and we will not reverse its decision absent an abuse of that discretion. Maddox v. Dep't of Hum. Servs., 400 N.W.2d 136, 139 (Minn.App. 1987). "A district court abuses its discretion if its decision is against logic and the facts in the record." State v. Scheffler, 932 N.W.2d 57, 60 (Minn.App. 2019).
4. The statute does not require the district court to make findings of fact about the complaint beyond the "finding . . . that the action is not of a frivolous nature" before granting IFP status, Minn. Stat. § 563.01, subd. 3(b), but this court generally requires findings to facilitate effective appellate review, see In re Voluntary Dissolution of Amitad, Inc., 397 N.W.2d 594, 596 (Minn.App. 1986). The district court's order explaining that Meranelli's claim was not viable because the statute of limitations expired is sufficient to permit appellate review, and we therefore decline Meranelli's request for a remand for further findings.
5. "In the context of a request for IFP status, [a] frivolous claim is [one] without any reasonable basis in law or equity and that could not be supported by a good faith argument for a modification or reversal of existing law." Scheffler, 932 N.W.2d at 62 (quotation omitted). An action has "no reasonable basis in law," and may therefore be frivolous, when it is commenced after the expiration of the applicable statute of limitations. Cole v. Star Tribune, 581 N.W.2d 364, 370 (Minn.App. 1998) (affirming imposition of sanctions under Minn. R. Civ. P. 11 for, among other things, serving a lawsuit after statute of limitations expired).
6. An action is not viable and dismissal is proper under Minn. R. Civ. P. 12.02(e) "if it clearly and unequivocally appears from the face of the complaint that the statute of limitations has run and . . . the complaint contains no facts to toll that running." Pederson v. Am. Lutheran Church, 404 N.W.2d 887, 889 (Minn.App. 1987) (applying former Minn. R. Civ. P. 12.02(5), now renumbered as 12.02(e)), rev. denied (Minn. June 30, 1987). "The construction and applicability of statutes of limitations are questions of law that this court reviews de novo." Benigni v. County of St. Louis, 585 N.W.2d 51, 54 (Minn. 1998).
7. A breach-of-contract action must generally be brought no later than six years after the claim accrues, Minn. Stat. § 541.05, subd. 1(1) (2022), and the claim generally accrues at the time of the breach, St. Paul Fire and Marine Ins. Co. v. A.P.I., Inc., 738 N.W.2d 401, 408 (Minn.App. 2007), rev. denied (Minn. Dec. 11, 2007). Meranelli alleged in her complaint that Wright had been in breach of the contract for more than 12 years. Thus, on the face of the complaint, Meranelli's claim expired more than six years before she sought to bring the action. Meranelli did not assert in the complaint that the statute of limitations was tolled and did not allege facts that would support such an assertion. In addition, "[c]ourts have no authority to extend or modify statutory limitations periods." Jacobson v. Bd. of Trs. of the Tchrs. Ret. Ass'n, 627 N.W.2d 106, 109 (Minn.App. 2001) (quotation omitted), rev. denied (Minn. Aug. 15, 2001). Thus, there can be no "good faith argument for modification or reversal" of the law that bars Meranelli's claim. Scheffler, 932 N.W.2d at 62 (quotation omitted). We therefore conclude that the district court acted within its discretion when it determined that Meranelli's claim was frivolous and denied her application for IFP status.
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED:
1. The district court's order denying appellant's application to proceed in forma pauperis 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.