Wiel v. Wahlgren

934 N.W.2d 125

In re the Marriage of: Russell Vander WIEL, Respondent,

v.Sharna Ann WAHLGREN, Appellant.

A18-1865

Court of Appeals of Minnesota.

Filed September 3, 2019

Linda S. S. de Beer, Jenna K. Monson, de Beer & Associates, P.A., Lake Elmo, Minnesota (for respondent)

Kay Nord Hunt, Michelle K. Kuhl, Lommen Abdo, P.A., Minneapolis, Minnesota; and Evon M. Spangler, Spangler and de Stefano, PLLP, St. Paul, Minnesota (for appellant)

Janet Goehle, Roseville, Minnesota (guardian ad litem)

Considered and decided by Smith, Tracy M., Presiding Judge; Schellhas, Judge; and Jesson, Judge.

JESSON, Judge

After appellant Sharna Ann Wahlgren requested multiple extensions of discovery deadlines during the marital-dissolution proceeding, the district court appointed a guardian ad litem for Wahlgren. Because the district court did not provide Wahlgren with notice and an opportunity for a hearing before appointing a guardian ad litem, as required by rule 17.02 of the Minnesota Rules of Civil Procedure, we reverse.

FACTS

Appellant Sharna Ann Wahlgren (wife) married respondent Russell Vander Wiel (husband) on July 5, 1996. After 21 years of marriage, the parties separated in October 2017. That same month, husband filed for divorce. The parties do not have any children, and the primary issue in their dissolution proceeding is the distribution of financial assets.

In May 2018, the parties attempted mediation but reached no agreement. As the case headed toward trial, wife requested several continuances and extensions of discovery deadlines from the district court, including one on June 27, 2018. The next day, while attending husband’s scheduled deposition, wife experienced a medical emergency rendering her unresponsive. Wife was transported by ambulance to the hospital. After some medical tests, doctors released her from the hospital the next day.

Shortly after, in early July, husband filed a motion to compel discovery, and the district court granted wife a short continuance. Later that month, husband filed an amended motion to compel discovery. In response, wife submitted an affidavit explaining that since her hospitalization, she was working with doctors to deal with "ongoing significant health issues" and trying to decide if she needed to take some time away from work. At a hearing on the amended motion to compel discovery, husband orally requested that the district court appoint a guardian ad litem for wife in order to allow the dissolution proceeding to move forward. Wife’s counsel noted that wife had recently received a mental-health diagnosis and that she was about to begin a three-week, quasi-residential program to address her mental health. The district court denied husband’s request to appoint a guardian ad litem for wife and allowed wife two weeks to respond to discovery requests, but denied wife’s request to place the case on inactive status. In denying husband’s request to appoint a guardian ad litem, the district court explicitly found that "[t]here is nothing in the record that indicates that [wife] is incompetent to proceed requiring the appointment of a [g]uardian." The district court set a trial date for early November 2018.

In October 2018, wife again requested that discovery deadlines be extended and that the trial be delayed until January 2019. In support of her request, wife submitted a confidential-information form, including a letter from her doctors detailing her mental-health diagnoses and stating that participation in the case was detrimental to wife’s mental health. The parties participated in an off-the-record telephone conference with the district court, and shortly after, without providing wife with written notice or a hearing on the record, the district court issued an order appointing a guardian ad litem for wife and rescheduling the trial. Wife appeals, challenging the appointment of a guardian ad litem.¹

ISSUE

Was the procedure used to appoint the guardian ad litem improper?

ANALYSIS

Wife contends that the district court erred by appointing a guardian ad litem for her without first providing her with notice and a hearing, which she argues are required by rule 17.02 of the Minnesota Rules of Civil Procedure and due process. In order to evaluate wife’s argument, we must interpret the Minnesota Rules of Civil Procedure, and address a question of law, which we consider de novo. Gams v. Houghton , 884 N.W.2d 611, 616 (Minn. 2016).

We begin our interpretation of rule 17.02 by examining the text of the rule. Sela Invest. Ltd., LLP v. H.E. , 909 N.W.2d 344, 347 (Minn. App. 2018). In doing so, we generally interpret words according to their ordinary meaning. Cox v. Mid-Minn. Mut. Ins. Co. , 909 N.W.2d 540, 543 (Minn. 2018). The rule, entitled, "Infants or Incompetent Persons," first provides:

Whenever a party to an action is an infant or is incompetent and has a representative duly appointed under the laws of this state or the laws of a foreign state or country, the representative may sue or defend on behalf of such party. A party who is an infant or is incompetent and is not so represented shall be represented by a guardian ad litem appointed by the court in which the action is pending or is to be brought.

Minn. R. Civ. P. 17.02. This provision acknowledges that, in cases where a party is either an infant or incompetent, the party’s legal representative may sue or defend against a suit on the party’s behalf. But the provision takes an additional step: it states that if a party to a lawsuit is an infant or incompetent person without a legal representative, the court shall appoint a guardian ad litem to represent that party in the action.² Id.

Once the question of the necessity of a guardian ad litem is raised, the rule describes the process for such an appointment. Any person may apply "under oath" for the appointment of a guardian ad litem, including the adverse party. Id. And the rule specifies information that such an application must contain. Id. Then, the rule establishes a procedural framework for deciding a request for appointment of a guardian ad litem:

If the appointment is applied for by the party or by a spouse , parent, custodian or testamentary or other guardian of the party, the court may hear the application with or without notice. In all other cases written notice of the hearing on the application shall be given at such time as the court shall prescribe, and shall be served upon the party, the party’s spouse, parent, custodian and testamentary or other guardian, if any ....

Minn. R. Civ. P. 17.02 (emphasis added).³ Based on the language of this portion of rule 17.02, if certain family members—including a spouse—or a legal representative are seeking appointment of a guardian ad litem, a district court may consider and decide the request without providing notice to the party for whom a guardian ad litem is being sought.

That happened here. Husband sought the appointment of a guardian ad litem for wife to expedite and facilitate the dissolution proceeding. Husband first orally requested the appointment of a guardian ad litem at a hearing on one of his discovery motions. But the district court denied the request at that time, finding that nothing in the record suggested wife was incompetent so as to require the appointment of a guardian ad litem. Several months later, after wife requested an extension of discovery, the district court held an off-the-record telephone conference and subsequently issued a written order appointing a guardian ad litem for wife. There is no indication of an application for a guardian ad litem made under oath. Wife received no written notice of such an application. And no opportunity for a hearing was provided to wife.

Our analysis of rule 17.02 leads us to conclude that wife was entitled to notice and a hearing before the district court appointed a guardian ad litem for her. Although the text of rule 17.02 allows, in limited circumstances, a district court to appoint a guardian ad litem without notice and a hearing, we conclude that such a limited exception does not apply when an adverse party seeks the appointment of a guardian ad litem for a party, regardless of familial relationships.

We reach this conclusion by first reading the text of rule 17.02 as a whole. The text of the rule states that an adverse party may seek the appointment of a guardian ad litem for the opposing party. Minn. R. Civ. P. 17.02. And later in the rule, district courts are given permission to hear and decide a request for the appointment of a guardian ad litem without notice if certain immediate family members seek the appointment. Id. But the rule does not provide that same exception to the notice requirement for adverse parties. Accordingly, we read the rule as implicitly requiring a district court to provide notice when an adverse party seeks the appointment of a guardian ad litem, even if the adverse party is one of the identified immediate family members.

Our reading of the rule is bolstered by the history and purpose of the notice provision found in rule 17.02. Cox , 909 N.W.2d at 544 (providing that when interpreting a rule of civil procedure, courts may consider the rule’s history and purpose). To this end, we first examine the evolution of rule 17.02 in Minnesota, and then turn to the purpose for including the notice provision in the rule.

We begin with the history of rule 17.02. The Minnesota Supreme Court first adopted the Minnesota Rules of Civil Procedure in 1952. Minn. R. Civ. P. 86.01. The 1952 version of rule 17.02 permitted the appointment of a guardian ad litem for infants and incompetent persons and contained a notice provision that stated:

When application is properly made by an infant [on] his own behalf, or by the general guardian of an infant or incompetent person, no notice shall be required. In other cases, notice of such application, designating the time and place of hearing, shall be given to the general guardian of such party or person or to such relative, advisor or friend

...