In re the Marriage of: Kenneth M. Kuller v. Elizabeth A. Kuller

This opinion will be unpublished and
may not be cited except as provided by
Minn. Stat. § 480A.08, subd. 3 (2012).
STATE OF MINNESOTA
IN COURT OF APPEALS
A13-2277
In re the Marriage of:
Kenneth M. Kuller, petitioner,
Appellant,
vs.
Elizabeth A. Kuller,
Respondent
Filed August 11, 2014
Affirmed
Hudson, Judge
Hennepin County District Court
File No. 27-FA-000301061
Kenneth M. Kuller, Minneapolis, Minnesota (pro se appellant)
Elizabeth A. Kuller, Edina, Minnesota (pro se respondent)
Considered and decided by Smith, Presiding Judge; Halbrooks, Judge; and
Hudson, Judge.
UNPUBLISHED OPINION
HUDSON, Judge
On appeal from the district court’s dismissal of his motion to review a child-
support magistrate’s order, appellant argues that the district court erred by dismissing his
motion as untimely. We affirm.
FACTS
Appellant Kenneth M. Kuller and respondent Elizabeth A. Kuller were married
and had two children. A judgment and decree for dissolution of their marriage was
entered in 2007; that judgment established child custody and support arrangements.
Appellant brought a motion to modify child support based on the emancipation of one of
the children. On July 31, 2013, a child-support magistrate issued an order lowering
appellant’s child-support obligation and imposing other requirements related to medical
and dental expenses. Attached to that order was a notice informing appellant that he had
a “right to bring a Motion to Correct Clerical Mistakes, a Motion for Review, a
Combined Motion, or you may appeal the attached decision and order directly to the
Court of Appeals.” The instructions for bringing a motion to review specifically stated
that all of the steps must be completed by August 23, 2013. Those steps include serving
a copy of the motion on the other parties, filing the original motion and proof of service
with the court administrator, paying filing fees, and completing a request for a transcript
if required.
On August 12, 2013, appellant’s attorney mailed a letter to the magistrate who
issued the July 31 order requesting permission “to bring a motion to reconsider . . .
pursuant to Rule 115.11 of the Minnesota General Rules of Practice for the District
Courts.” On October 17, 2013, the magistrate filed an order that “dismissed” appellant’s
request for permission to bring a motion to reconsider. The order notes that because the
letter was filed as correspondence, not as a motion, it was not promptly brought to the
magistrate’s attention. Further, the order notes that the Rules of Expedited Child Support
2
Process (a subpart of the General Rules of Practice) do not permit motions to reconsider,
and that the letter did not meet the requirements of a motion to review.
On October 29, 2013, appellant filed a pro se motion to review, requesting that a
district court judge review the July 31 order. Appellant claimed that because a motion for
reconsideration under Minn. R. Gen. Pract. 115.11 “does not toll any time periods or
deadlines,” the time for bringing a motion to review the July 31 order did not begin to run
until his request for reconsideration was denied on October 17, 2013. On November 25,
2013, the district court issued an order dismissing appellant’s motion to review, stating
that “Motions to Reconsider are not allowed in the Expedited Child Support Process” and
that, because appellant had not properly followed the procedures for filing a motion to
review from the July 31 order, his October 29 motion was untimely. This appeal follows.
DECISION
Appellant argues that his attorney’s August 12 letter requesting permission to file
a motion to reconsider effectively extended the timing requirements for filing a motion to
review. In the alternative, appellant argues that this court should, in the interests of
justice, reverse the district court’s denial of his motion to review.
Rule 377.01 of the Expedited Child Support Process Rules states “[e]xcept for
motions to correct clerical mistakes, motions for review, or motions alleging fraud, all
other motions for post-decision relief are precluded.” Thus, appellant’s letter requesting
permission to file a motion to reconsider under Minn. R. Gen. Pract. 115.11 sought a
remedy not available under the expedited-child-support process. Nor does a motion for
reconsideration under rule 115.11 extend any time period for an appeal or other motion as
3
appellant suggests. See In re Welfare of S.M.E., 725 N.W.2d 740, 743 (Minn. 2007)
(stating that “[w]hile certain post-decision motions extend the time to appeal until those
motions have been decided, motions for reconsideration do not”). Accordingly, the
district court did not err by concluding that appellant’s October 29 motion to review the
July 31 order was untimely because it was filed after the August 23 deadline.
We also decline to reverse the district court’s order in the interests of justice. See
id. at 744 (permitting an untimely appeal in the interests of justice based on confusion
over the tolling of deadlines). While we recognize that there was a delay in the
magistrate’s response to the August 12 letter, the attachment to the July 31 order clearly
identified the proper procedures for obtaining review of the order, which did not include
a motion for reconsideration.
Affirmed.
4