Opinion
Nos. C8-01-1816, C1-01-1866
Filed May 28, 2002.
Appeal from the District Court, Anoka County, File Nos. P1004361, P1004364.
Timothy R. Brady, (pro se appellant)
James M. Crist, (for respondent Anthony F. Roszak)
Laura J. Hanson, (for respondent Coleen M. Brady)
Stephen D. Radtke, (for respondent Dorothy F. Brady)
Mark L. Anderson, (for respondent Maureen Brady Jordan)
Considered and decided by Lansing, Presiding Judge, Kalitowski, Judge, and Anderson, Judge.
This opinion will be unpublished and may not be cited except as provided by Minn. Stat. § 480A.08, subd. 3 (2000).
UNPUBLISHED OPINION
In these consolidated conservatorship proceedings, pro se appellant, son of the conservatee, contends (1) the district court erred in dismissing his petition to challenge the change in the conservatee's place of abode; and (2) the judge who allowed the change to occur had a conflict of interest. We affirm.
DECISION I.
This court reviews the district court's determination regarding a conservatee's place of abode for an abuse of discretion, Conservatorship of Brady, 607 N.W.2d 781, 784 (Minn. 2000). Appellant contends the district court erred as a matter of law by refusing to hear evidence and take testimony concerning his petition to determine the conservatee's place of abode. We disagree.
Minn. Stat. § 525.61, subd. 1 (2000), discusses modifications of conservatorships and states that any person "may petition the court in which [the conservatorship was adjudicated] * * * to modify the guardianship or conservatorship." This statute provides no guideline on when a petition for modification can be brought. Id.
Here, the district court noted that the supreme court had affirmed the previous district court's determination of Minnesota as the conservatee's place of abode. Also, the district court noted that appellant simply reargued the same issues to the district court that had already been argued to the supreme court. Finally, the district court noted that the only change in circumstance, the conservatee's deteriorating condition, had been at least tangentially considered by the supreme court.
Because the supreme court has affirmed a determination of Minnesota as the conservatee's place of abode and circumstances have not significantly changed, we conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion by denying appellant's petition without an evidentiary hearing.
II.
Appellant contends the district court erred as a matter of law by refusing to hear evidence and testimony that the conservatorship should be dismissed because the former trial judge was biased. We disagree.
A conservatorship can be dismissed by timely appeal or by the restoration to capacity of the conservatee. See Minn. Stat. § 525.61 (2000). Under Minn.R.Civ.App.P. 104.01, an appeal may be taken within 60 days of entry of judgment or filing of the order. Appellant did not appeal the 1997 order establishing the conservatorship and appellant does not argue that the conservatee has regained capacity. We conclude that appellant's petition to dismiss conservatorship was properly dismissed by the district court for lack of merit.