White v. Clinic

• Docket Number: A25-0729
• Decision Date: 09 February 2026
• Citation: White v. Clinic, A25-0729 (Minn. App. Feb 09, 2026)
• Parties: Dametria White, et al., as co-trustees for the next-of-kin of Helayne Bass, deceased, Appellants, v. Park Nicollet Clinic, Respondent.
• Court: Minnesota Court of Appeals

1

Dametria White, et al., as co-trustees for the next-of-kin of Helayne Bass, deceased, Appellants,
v.
Park Nicollet Clinic, Respondent.

No. A25-0729

Court of Appeals of Minnesota

February 9, 2026

This opinion is nonprecedential except as provided by Minn. R. Civ. App. P. 136.01, subd. 1(c).

Hennepin County District Court File No. 27-CV-23-16901

Oliver E. Nelson III, Magna Law Firm, Minneapolis, Minnesota (for appellants)

Sarah M. Hoffman, Bassford Remele, P.A., Minneapolis, Minnesota (for respondent)

Considered and decided by Bratvold, Presiding Judge; Schmidt, Judge; and Bentley, Judge.

BRATVOLD, Judge

Appellants seek to overturn the district court's order granting respondent's motion for judgment on the pleadings and dismissing appellants' wrongful-death complaint. Appellants argue that the district court erred by determining that they were not appointed as wrongful-death trustees before the statute of limitations expired and by concluding that

2

the wrongful-death action was untimely under Minnesota Statutes section 573.02, subdivision 1 (2024). Appellants contend that the district court made filing a trustee's oath a jurisdictional requirement, which contravenes caselaw. Alternatively, appellants argue that they are entitled to relief under Minnesota Rule of Civil Procedure 60.02. We conclude that the wrongful-death action was not timely commenced by a court-appointed trustee and that appellants are not entitled to rule 60.02 relief. Thus, we affirm.

FACTS

Helayne Bass died from heart disease on or about December 3, 2021.^[1] On April 7, 2023, Helayne's daughters—appellants Dametria White and Dashauna Bass—petitioned to be appointed as "co-trustees" to bring a wrongful-death action on behalf of Helayne's next of kin. Appellants submitted a proposed order with the petition.

On May 10, 2023, after a hearing, the district court filed an appointment order that was identical to appellants' proposed order and stated: "The foregoing petition having been duly considered, IT IS ORDERED that, upon the filing of oath pursuant to [Minnesota Statutes section] 358.06, that [appellants] be appointed co-trustees to maintain the action described in said petition." (Emphasis added.)^[2]

3

Appellants served respondent Park Nicollet Clinic with a wrongful-death complaint dated August 20, 2023. The complaint alleged that Park Nicollet negligently diagnosed Helayne shortly before her death and that appellants were "appointed as co-trustees for next-of-kin of Helayne."

On October 4, 2023, Park Nicollet answered the complaint. Along with denying medical negligence, Park Nicollet admitted "that an Order related to the appointment of [appellants] was filed on May 10, 2023." But Park Nicollet also alleged that appellants had "not fully complied with the directives of that Order" or the wrongful-death statute.

On December 3, 2024, the three-year limitations period expired for an action based on Helayne's wrongful death. See Minn. Stat. § 573.02, subd. 1 (providing that a wrongful-death action "shall be commenced within three years of the date of death"). In February 2025, appellants filed executed trustee's oaths with the district court.

In March 2025, Park Nicollet moved for judgment on the pleadings under Minnesota Rule of Civil Procedure 12.03. Park Nicollet argued that the complaint should be dismissed as untimely because the "trustee appointment was contingent upon filing statutory oaths, and those oaths were not filed before the statute of limitations expired."

4

Appellants opposed the motion, maintaining that Minnesota caselaw has "expressly held that a party's filing of the sworn oath before the statute of limitations expires is not a condition precedent to the trustee timely filing a wrongful-death lawsuit."

In April 2025, the district court heard arguments on Park Nicollet's motion. Along with advancing their position on the merits, appellants' attorney stated, "[M]aybe the appropriate remedy here is to grant [appellants] the opportunity to seek relief from [the appointment] order, if Your Honor is of the mind that the order does make the trustee appointment contingent on the filing of the oath." Appellants' attorney added that "perhaps the best thing here to do would be for [appellants] . . . to seek relief from the express language of" the appointment order under Minnesota Rule of Civil Procedure 60.02. After the hearing, appellants did not move for relief under rule 60.02.

On May 5, 2025, the district court filed an order granting Park Nicollet's motion and dismissing the complaint, setting out its decision in two steps. First, the district court determined that filing trustee's oaths was a condition precedent to appellants' appointment as co-trustees under the terms of the appointment order. Second, the district court determined that appellants did not file their oaths before the three-year limitations period expired. As a result, they "did not have legal standing to bring the wrongful-death action, and the present action is a 'legal nullity.'" The district court did not address whether appellants were entitled to relief under rule 60.02.

This appeal follows.

5

DECISION

Appellants seek reversal of the district court's order granting Park Nicollet's rule 12.03 motion for judgment on the pleadings and dismissing appellants' wrongful-death complaint. Generally, appellate courts review de novo the grant of a rule 12.03 motion "to determine whether the pleadings set forth a legally sufficient claim for relief." Abel v. Abbott Nw. Hosp., 947 N.W.2d 58, 68 (Minn. 2020). Under rule 12.03, a claim is legally sufficient "if it is possible on any evidence which might be produced, consistent with the pleader's theory, to grant the relief demanded." Id. (quotation omitted).

Both parties state that we should review the district court's order under rule 12.03. While we agree that de novo review applies, we disagree that the district court limited its inquiry as required under rule 12.03. In deciding a motion under rule 12.03, the district court may rely only on pleadings. Minn. R. Civ. P. 12.03; see also Minn. R. Civ. P. 7.01 (explaining that pleadings include a complaint and an answer, a reply to a counterclaim, and an answer to a cross-claim); Black's Law Dictionary 1394 (12th ed. 2024) (defining "pleading" as a "formal document" that "sets forth or responds to allegations, claims, denials, or defenses"). Based on the parties' submissions, the district court considered matters outside the complaint and answer in reaching its decision. For example, the district court considered appellants' proposed order filed with their petition to be appointed as wrongful-death trustees, the appointment order, and the trustee's oaths executed and filed by appellants.

If, in deciding a motion under rule 12.03, "matters outside the pleadings are presented to and not excluded by the court, the motion shall be treated as one for summary

6

judgment and disposed of as provided for in" Minnesota Rule of Civil Procedure 56. Minn. R. Civ. P. 12.03; see also Expose v. Thad Wilderson &Assocs., P.A., 889 N.W.2d 279, 284 &n.3 (Minn. 2016) (reviewing an order granting a rule 12.03 motion as one for summary judgment "because the district court relied on documents that were not part of the pleadings"). We therefore treat the order on appeal as one granting summary judgment.

Appellate courts "review the grant of summary judgment de novo to determine whether there are genuine issues of material fact and whether the district court erred in its application of the law." Montemayor v. Sebright Prods., Inc., 898 N.W.2d 623, 628 (Minn. 2017) (quotation omitted). In doing so, appellate courts "view the evidence in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party." Kenneh v. Homeward Bound, Inc., 944 N.W.2d 222, 228 (Minn. 2020). Thus, the record is reviewed differently under rule 56 than it is under rule 12. In this case, the relevant facts are undisputed as to appellants' appointment as wrongful-death trustees, the commencement of the wrongful-death action, and the filing of trustee's oaths by appellants.

On review, appellants raise two issues: (1) whether the district court erred by dismissing their wrongful-death action as untimely and (2) whether relief is appropriate under rule 60.02.^[3] We address each issue in turn.

7

I. Appellants' wrongful-death action was untimely.

Wrongful-death claims are "purely statutory, as common law recognized no such actions on the theory that a claim for personal injuries died with the victim." Ortiz v. Gavenda, 590 N.W.2d 119, 121 (Minn. 1999). Because wrongful-death actions contravene the common law and are statutorily created, the three-year limitations period is "jurisdictional, requiring dismissal for failure to comply"; in other words, a wrongful-death action does "not have flexible parameters" that allow the limitations provision "to be ignored if [its] application is too technical." Id. at 122 (quotation marks omitted); see also Berghuis v. Korthuis, 37 N.W.2d 809, 810 (Minn. 1949) ("This period fixing the time within which the right of action for wrongful death may be exercised is not an ordinary statute of limitations. It is considered a condition precedent to the right to maintain the action, and the lapse of such period is an absolute bar.").

A. The statute of limitations expired before appellants were appointed as wrongful-death trustees.

A wrongful-death action "shall be commenced within three years of the date of death." Minn. Stat. § 573.02, subd. 1. Only a trustee may commence a wrongful-death action:

When death is caused by [a] wrongful act or omission . . ., the trustee appointed as provided in subdivision 3 may maintain an action therefor if the decedent might have maintained an action, had the decedent lived, for an injury caused by the wrongful act or omission.

8

Id....