Ramsey
County District Court File No. 62-FA-17-2657
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.
SYLLABUS
When an
adverse party requests the appointment of a guardian ad litem
for a party who is not an infant and has never been
adjudicated as incompetent, rule 17.02 of the Minnesota Rules
of Civil Procedure entitles the party to notice and an
opportunity for a hearing before a guardian ad litem is
appointed.
OPINION
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 ...