Opinion
A21-0933
01-07-2022
In the Matter of the Appointment of a Trustee for the Next of Kin of Daunte Demetrius Wright, Decedent.
Hennepin County District Court File No. 27-CV-21-4767
Considered and decided by Ross, Presiding Judge; Larkin, Judge; and Bryan, Judge.ORDER OPINION
MICHELLE A. LARKIN JUDGE.
BASED ON THE FILE, RECORD, AND PROCEEDINGS, AND BECAUSE:
1. On April 11, 2021, Daunte Demetrius Wright was killed by a Brooklyn Center police officer. Respondents Katie and Arbuey Wright are Wright's parents. Wright's parents petitioned the district court to appoint respondent Lisa Brabbit as a neutral trustee on behalf of Wright's next of kin, for the purpose of pursuing a wrongful-death claim. Brabbit is an associate dean at the University of St. Thomas School of Law. All but one of Wright's next of kin consented to Brabbit's appointment.
2. Daunte Wright Jr. is Wright's only child. He was one year old at the time of Wright's death. Appellant Chyna Whitaker is the child's mother and guardian. Whitaker, acting on behalf of the child, did not consent to Brabbit's appointment as trustee. In May 2021, Whitaker objected to the appointment of Brabbit as the sole trustee and cross-petitioned the district court to appoint her as a co-trustee "solely for the purposes of representing the interests of her son, Daunte Jr." Whitaker objected to Brabbit's 1 appointment as sole trustee because Brabbit intended to hire attorney Ben Crump to prosecute the wrongful-death claim. Crump had represented Whitaker immediately after Wright's death, but Whitaker terminated that representation because she believed that Crump was favoring the rest of Wright's family over the child. Thus, Whitaker feared that Brabbit and Crump would not adequately represent the child's interests, which were distinct from the interests of Wright's parents, grandparents, and siblings. She argued that the district court should appoint her as co-trustee to represent the child's interests, with the understanding that she would retain separate counsel.
3. The district court held a hearing on the petitions. It appointed Brabbit as trustee for Wright's next of kin and denied Whitaker's petition to be appointed as co-trustee. The district court reasoned that one trustee was "the most efficient and effective way" for Wright's estate to proceed and that "animosity between the family and Ms. Whitaker would make a co-trusteeship unworkable." Whitaker appeals.
4. Minnesota law permits a trustee to maintain an action for a wrongful death. Minn. Stat. § 573.02, subd. 1 (2020). Upon written petition by one of the decedent's next of kin, the district court "shall appoint a suitable and competent person as trustee to commence or continue such action and obtain recovery of damages therein." Id., subd. 3 (2020). Any recovery in the action is for the "exclusive benefit" of the next of kin. Id., subd. 1. The district court has discretion when appointing a trustee, and this court has reviewed the appointment of a trustee for an abuse of discretion. In re Appointment of Tr. for Heirs of Bodeker, 661 N.W.2d 271, 276-77 (Minn.App. 2003). An abuse of discretion 2 occurs when the district court's decision "is against logic and the facts on record." Dobrin v. Dobrin, 569 N.W.2d 199, 202 (Minn. 1997).
5. Whitaker does not challenge the district court's appointment of Brabbit as trustee. Instead, she challenges the district court's refusal to appoint her as co-trustee. Whitaker contends that the district court erred for two reasons. First, Whitaker argues that the district court's only reason for denying the petition was its belief that there was "animosity" between Whitaker and Wright's family, but there is no evidence of such animosity in the record. Second, Whitaker argues that the district court failed to consider other material facts that strongly favored the appointment of a co-trustee.
6. Although co-trustees have been appointed in other wrongful-death cases, the appointment of a co-trustee was not contested in those cases. See, e.g., Hanson v. State Farm Ins. Co., 661 N.W.2d 659, 661 (Minn.App. 2003) (stating that one party initially moved to remove the other party as trustee, but that the parties then agreed to serve as co-trustees); Bodeker, 661 N.W.2d at 274 (noting that the trustee consented to the later appointment of a co-trustee). Moreover, we are not aware of any statute, rule, or caselaw identifying or limiting the circumstances that would favor or disfavor such an arrangement. Thus, even if the district court erred in reasoning that there was animosity between Whitaker and the Wrights, we cannot say that the district court's decision to deny Whitaker's petition based on the court's desire to ensure efficient, effective proceedings was against logic and the facts in the record.
7. As to Whitaker's argument that the district court abused its discretion by failing to consider other material facts that strongly favored the appointment of a co-trustee, 3 she contends that the district court did not consider her allegations of misconduct against attorney Crump. Brabbit intended to and did hire Crump as one of the attorneys representing the trustee, even though Whitaker previously had terminated Crump's representation. Whitaker complains that she "is now in the position of having her son's interests represented by counsel that she has already terminated for cause and in which she has no faith."
8. Under the rules of general practice, the trustee applies for the distribution of the money recovered from a wrongful-death action. Minn. R. Gen. Prac. 144.05. The court hearing the petition for distribution "shall approve, modify, or disapprove the proposed disposition and shall specify the persons to whom the proceeds are to be paid." Id. The trustee must provide notice of the distribution hearing. Id. The district court noted that Whitaker "would be able to advocate for her position at a distribution hearing."
9. The district court did not directly address Whitaker's allegations against Crump in denying her petition. But we are not surprised given that Whitaker did not ask the district court to remove attorney Crump as one of the attorneys representing the trustee in the wrongful-death action. Nor did Wright object to the appointment of Brabbit on the ground that Brabbit retained Crump to prosecute the wrongful-death claim. Based on the statements of counsel for both parties during oral argument before this court, we understand that those options may still be available to Whitaker even though the district court denied her petition for appointment as co-trustee.
10. Error on appeal is not presumed. Loth v. Loth, 35 N.W.2d 542, 546 (Minn. 1949). The party alleging error has the burden to establish it on appeal and must also show 4 prejudice stemming from the error to obtain relief. Id. We are not persuaded that the district court ignored Whitaker's concerns regarding attorney Crump's involvement in the wrongful-death action. Instead, the record indicates that the district court considered Whitaker's objections to Crump's involvement and rejected those objections as grounds for appointment of co-trustees, reasoning that Whitaker would have the opportunity to address concerns regarding the distribution of any financial recovery at the distribution hearing, represented by counsel of her choice. That approach was not against logic and the facts in the record.
11. In sum, Whitaker has not established error or prejudice justifying reversal. We therefore affirm the district court's order without addressing respondents' other arguments in support of that outcome.
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED:
1. The district court's order 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. 5