Opinion
A21-0979
01-06-2022
Kevin P. Sweetnam, Appellant, v. Shari Sweetnam, a/k/a Shari Sweetnam Vlatkovich, Respondent.
Itasca County District Court File No. 31-CV-19-3164
Considered and decided by Reilly, Presiding Judge; Johnson, Judge; and Larkin, Judge.
ORDER OPINION
MICHELLE A. LARKIN JUDGE.
BASED ON THE FILE, RECORD, AND PROCEEDINGS, AND BECAUSE:
1. Appellant Kevin P. Sweetnam (brother) and respondent Shari Sweetnam, a/k/a Shari Sweetnam Vlatkovich (sister) are siblings. A relative transferred ownership of real property to brother in the 1990s. In 2001, brother purportedly executed a quitclaim deed conveying a joint tenancy in the property to sister.
2. In November 2019, brother, represented by counsel, commenced an action against sister to "rescind" the 2001 quitclaim deed. He asserted that he did not sign or authorize his signature on that deed.
3. Sister moved for summary judgment and sanctions against brother and his attorney. She argued that brother's claim was time-barred. Brother argued that his claim 1 was not time-barred because it was an action affecting title to real estate and therefore was subject to a 40-year statute of limitations.
4. The district court granted sister's motion, concluding that summary judgment and sanctions were warranted. In granting summary judgment, the district court determined that brother's claim was based on fraud and therefore was barred by a six-year statute of limitations under Minn. Stat. § 541.05, subd. 1(6) (2020). In imposing sanctions against brother, the district court stated, "Pursuant to Minn. R. Civ. P. 11.02 and 11.03, where this action was not warranted by existing law, and in fact precluded" by section 541.05, subdivision 1(6), "[brother] has conducted himself in a fashion worthy of sanctions." The district court ultimately ordered brother to pay sister $27,000 for "attorney fees incurred." This appeal followed.
5. A district court has broad discretion in determining whether to impose sanctions under rule 11, and we will not disturb its decision absent an abuse of discretion. Gibson v. Coldwell Banker Burnet, 659 N.W.2d 782, 787, 790 (Minn.App. 2003). A district court abuses its discretion if a sanctions award is based on an erroneous view of the law or if no reasonable person would agree that the sanctions were appropriate. Miller v. Lankow, 801 N.W.2d 120, 127 (Minn. 2011); Patton v. Newmar Corp., 538 N.W.2d 116, 119 (Minn. 1995).
6. Under the Minnesota Rules of Civil Procedure, the attorney of record for a represented party must sign the complaint. Minn. R. Civ. P. 11.01. By signing the complaint, the attorney certifies to the best of his or her knowledge: 2
(a) [the complaint] is not being presented for any improper purpose, such as to harass or to cause unnecessary delay or needless increase in the cost of litigation;
(b) the claims, defenses, and other legal contentions therein are warranted by existing law or by a nonfrivolous argument for the extension, modification, or reversal of existing law or the establishment of new law;
(c) the allegations and other factual contentions have evidentiary support or, if specifically so identified, are likely to have evidentiary support after a reasonable opportunity for further investigation or discovery;
(d)the denials of factual contentions are warranted on the evidence or, if specifically so identified, are reasonably based on a lack of information or belief; and
(e) the pleading, motion, or other document does not include any restricted identifiers . . . .Minn. R. Civ. P. 11.02.
7. If a district court determines that rule 11.02 has been violated, the court may, subject to certain conditions, "impose an appropriate sanction upon the attorneys, law firms, or parties." Minn. R. Civ. P. 11.03. However, a district court may not award monetary sanctions against a represented party for a violation of rule 11.02(b), which prohibits claims not warranted by existing law. Minn. R. Civ. P. 11.03(b)(1). When imposing sanctions, the district court must "describe the conduct determined to constitute a violation . . . and explain the basis for the sanction imposed." Minn. R. Civ. P. 11.03(c).
8. Brother argues that the district court abused its discretion by imposing sanctions against him, a represented party, for asserting a claim that was not warranted by existing law. Brother asserts that the award was based on rule 11.02(b).
9. The district court did not identify a specific subdivision of rule 11.02 as the basis for its award of sanctions. And, the district court referenced both a lack of legal 3 support for brother's claim and brother's conduct as the basis for the award. Although it is undisputed that the district court was prohibited, under rule 11.03(b)(1), from imposing sanctions against brother for a violation of rule 11.02(b), we are not certain that the district court's award was based on that subdivision.
10. The district court must make sufficient findings to permit meaningful appellate review. Woodrich Constr. Co. v. State, 177 N.W.2d 563, 565 (Minn. 1970); see also Minn. R. Civ. P. 11.03(c) (stating that the district court must explain the basis for the sanction imposed). Because we cannot determine the precise basis for the district court's award of sanctions under rule 11.02, the current record is inadequate for meaningful appellate review, and a remand is necessary.
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED:
1. We reverse the district court's award of sanctions and remand for the district court to clarify the specific ground for its award of sanctions under rule 11.02 and to make any findings necessary to support the award.
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. 4