In the Matter of the Estate of: Prince Rogers Nelson, Decedent

This opinion will be unpublished and
may not be cited except as provided by
Minn. Stat. § 480A.08, subd. 3 (2016).

STATE OF MINNESOTA
IN COURT OF APPEALS
A17-0927

In the Matter of the Estate of:
Prince Rogers Nelson, Decedent

Filed March 5, 2018
Affirmed
Rodenberg, Judge

Carver County District Court
File No. 10-PR-16-46

Paul F. Shoemaker, Shoemaker & Shoema ker, PLLC, Bloomington, Minnesota (for
appellant Cousins Law, APA)

Mark W. Greiner, Joseph J. Cassioppi, Emily A. Unger, Sarah M. Olson, Fredrickson &
Byron, Minneapolis, Minnesota (for respondent Comerica Bank and Trust N.A.)

Justin Andrew Bruntjen, Minneapolis, Minnes ota; and Nicholas Paul Granath, Seham,
Seham, Meltz & Peterson, LLP, Minneapolis, Minnesota (for respondent Alfred Jackson)

Nathaniel Arthur Dahl, Randall W. Sayers, Hansen Dordell Bradt Odlaug & Bradt, St. Paul,
Minnesota (for respondents Norrine Nelson, Sharon Nelson, John Nelson)

Steven Harris Silton, Thom as P. Kane, Cozen O’Conno r, Minneapolis, Minnesota (for
respondent Omarr Baker)

Tyka Nelson, Minneapolis, Minnesota (pro se respondent)

Considered and decided by Rodenberg, Presiding Judge; Smith, Tracy M., Judge;
and Bratvold, Judge.

2
U N P U B L I S H E D O P I N I O N
RODENBERG, Judge
Appellant Cousins Law A.P.A. challenges th e district court’s order dismissing its
Petition for Allowance of Claim Previously Disallowed as untimely. We affirm.
FACTS
Prince Rogers Nelson died intestate on Ap ril 21, 2016. Probate proceedings were
commenced, and there have been several appeals to this court concerning other matters
pertaining to the probate. Respondent Come rica Bank & Trust N.A. currently serves as
the personal representative (PR) of the estate. Five months after Prince’s death, Patrick
Cousins, a Florida attorney who claims to have performed some legal services for Prince,
and Cousins Law submitted a claim against the estate for an outstanding bill for
$599,735.63 by way of a certified letter addre ssed to the special administrator. Although
Cousins Law did not provide “ite mization or detail of the alle ged services provided,” it
explained that the legal services provided included “amongst other things, representing
Prince in a contested divorce,” a proceeding that concluded on October 2, 2007.
On October 27, 2016, appellant received from the PR a Notice of Disallowance of
Claim that explained that its claim against the estate “is disallowed because the claim has
no basis in law or fact.” The notice further said, “Your claim will be barred unless you file
a petition for allowance with the Court or commence a proceeding against the Special
Administrator no later than two months afte r the mailing of this notice to you.” On
December 6, 2016, appellant filed a Written Stat ement of Claim with the district court,

3
claiming the same amount as claimed origin ally. When no hearing was scheduled,
appellant filed a petition for allowance of claim on February 8, 2017.
The PR moved to dismiss appellant’s pe tition for allowance as untimely. At the
hearing before the district court, the parties disputed whether appellant’s December 6, 2016
Written Statement of Claim constituted a petition for allowance of claim under the
applicable statute and whether filing that Written Statement of Claim provided sufficient
notice of appellant’s intent to challenge the earlier denial of its claim.
The district court filed a written order analyzing the PR’s motion to dismiss as one
for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted under Minn. R. Civ. P. 12.02(e).
The district court dismissed appellant’s petition for allowance of claim because it was filed
more than two months after the PR denied a ppellant’s claim. The district court observed
that, while appellant did not request it, the two-month limit within which proceedings on a
denied claim must be commenced is eligible for an extension by the court. Noting that the
extension may not “run beyond the applicable statute of limitations,” the district court was
“not convinced that such an extension is warranted based u pon the applicable statute of
limitations.”
This appeal followed.
D E C I S I O N
We review a district court’s decision rega rding claims made against a decedent’s
estate for abuse of discretion. See In re Estate of Hoppke , 388 N.W.2d 754, 756 (Minn.
App. 1986). “If there is reas onable evidence to support the district court’s findings, we
will not disturb them.” Rogers v. Moore , 603 N.W.2d 650, 656 (Minn. 1999). We will

4
reverse a district court’s findings only if, upon review of the entire record, we are “left with
a definite and firm conviction th at a mistake has been made.” In re Estate of Beecham ,
378 N.W.2d 800, 802 (Minn. 1985).
A claim against a decedent’s estate begins when a claimant “deliver[s] or mail[s] to
the personal representative a writt en statement of the claim i ndicating its basis, the name
and address of the claimant, and the amount claimed.” Minn. Stat. § 524.3-804(1) (2016).
A claimant may instead “file a written statement of the claim, in the form prescribed by the
rule, with the court administrator.” Id. If a claim is presented to the personal
representative, the personal representative may either pay the claim or disallow it. Minn.
Stat. § 524.3-806(a) (2016). To challenge a personal representative’s denial of a claim, the
claimant may “file[] a petition for allowanc e in the court or co mmence[] a proceeding
against the personal representative not later than two months after the mailing of the notice
of disallowance . . . if the notice warns the claimant of the impending bar.” Id. (emphasis
added). But, “in any case, to avoid injustice the court, on petition, may order an extension
of the two month period, but in no event sh all the extension run beyond the applicable
statute of limitations.” Minn. Stat. § 524.3-804(3) (2016).
Here, appellant submitted its claim to th e PR on September 2, 2016, stating that
Prince “has an outstanding . . . running account , with Cousins for legal services” with an
“amount due of $599,735.63.” Appellant explained that “Prince did not object, complain,
or exhibit any dissatisfaction with the work or the bill[, and] has made payments from time
to time.” Appellant attached to the claim a one-page statement indicating only the “grand
total of all charges” with no line items or ot her identification of the services claimed to

5
have been provided, and no information concerning the dates on which any services were
provided. Appellant summarily explained that its work for Prince included, “amongst other
things, representing Prince in a contested divorc e, including responding to the complaint,
attending hearings and depositions, extensiv e discovery, negotiations, travel to and from
Minnesota and other parts of the world, preparing legal documents, etc.”
The PR denied appellant’s claim and sent a letter to that effect on October 18, 2016.1
The notice disallowing the claim expressly stated that the “claim will be barred unless you
file a petition for allowance with the Court or commence a proceeding against the Special
Administrator not later than two months after the mailing of this notice to you.” (Emphasis
added.) Appellant received the Notice of Di sallowance of Claim on October 27, 2016.
Instead of filing a petition for allowance with the district court or commencing a proceeding
against the PR, appellant filed its notice of claim a second time, but with the district court.
It was not until February 8, 2017 that appellant filed a petition for allowance and requested
a hearing on the matter. Because appellant di d not meet the statutory requirement that it
commence any proceeding for allowance of the claim within the two-month statutory time
limit, the district court correctly dete rmined that its claim was untimely. See Minn. Stat.
§ 524.3-806(a).
Appellant argues that the district court sh ould have extended the time to file the
petition for allowance of claim under Minn. St at. § 524.3-804(3). Bu t appellant did not

1 On October 14, 2016, the PR mailed an earlier Notice of Disallowance of Claim to
appellant that addressed another claimant. But on October 18, 2016, the PR sent a corrected
Notice of Disallowance of Claim to appellant, and we rely on this later date for the purposes
of our analysis. Appellant agrees that it received the corrected notice on October 27, 2016.

6
“petition” the district court for such an extension. The Minnesota Probate Code defines a
“petition” as “a written request to the cour t for an order after notice.” Minn. Stat.
§ 524.1-201(41) (2016). Appellant submitted no such written request. Instead, it merely
suggested at the April 7, 2017 hearing that an extension of time to file the petition would
be alternative relief available to it. In its or der dismissing appellant’s claim, the district
court explained that appellant “has not file d a petition or motion re questing an extension
of the two month period, and that even had he done so, the Court is not convinced that such
an extension is warranted.” We agree. There was no petition requesting an extension, and
even if appellant had petitioned for an extension, it failed to demonstrate entitlement to an
extension of time.
If appellant had filed a petition for an ex tension, appellant would have had to
demonstrate both that an extension was necessary to avoid injustice and that an extension
would not “run beyond the applicab le statute of limitations.” See Minn. Stat.
§ 524.3-804(3). The statute plainly contempl ates that the burden concerning such an
extension is on the claimant. The district c ourt’s discussion of the period of limitations
was in the context of a hypo thetical petition to extend th e two-month pe riod. After
concluding that appellant’s pe tition for allowance was untimely, 2 the district court
explained that, even if an extension had been properly requested, “ nothing in the record

2 The district court granted respondent’s motion to dismiss under Minn. R. Civ. P. 12.02(e)
and not under Minn. R. Civ. P. 12.03, which, at this stage, would have been treated as a
motion for summary judgment under Minn. R. Civ. P. 56. The district court ruled on the
motion based on the pleadings and only considered the docume nts that were included as
exhibits attached to the petition for allowance of claim.

7
indicates that the claims of Cousins Law ar e not barred by the applicable statute of
limitations.”3
Appellant’s February 8, 2017 petition for allowance of claim was not timely filed.
Appellant did not petition the district c ourt for an extension under Minn. Stat.
§ 524.3-804(3). And even if it had petitioned for an extension, we see no abuse of the
district court’s discretion in concluding that appellant had failed in any event to satisfy the
requirements of Minn. Stat. § 524.3-804(3) for an extension of time.
Affirmed.

3 The district court’s hypothetical discussion of whether an extension would “run beyond
the applicable statute of limitations” necessar ily relied on the pleadi ngs. Appellant has
never produced a detailed billing statement concerning the legal services it claims to have
provided. Although it could be possible that appellant provid ed legal services to Prince
after his divorce, appellant pleaded no facts to suggest when the le gal work was done.
Appellant has also never identified if and when any payments were made on the account.