In re: Guardianship/Conservatorship of Chad Wayne Thornberg.

This opinion is nonprecedential except as provided by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

STATE OF MINNESOTA
IN COURT OF APPEALS
A21-0617

In re: Guardianship/Conservatorship of Chad Wayne Thornberg.

Filed December 20, 2021
Reversed
Slieter, Judge

Douglas County District Court
File No. 21-P5-05-000344

Chad M. Larson, Douglas County Attorney, Tara J. Ulmaniec, Assistant County Attorney,
Alexandria, Minnesota (for appellant Douglas County Social Services)

Thomas P. Klecker, Thornton, Dolan, Bowen, Klecker & Burkhammer, P.A., Alexandria,
Minnesota (for respondents Beverly Cullen, Bernard Cullen, and Heather Sorenson)

Chad Wayne Thornberg, Alexandria, Minnesota (pro se respondent)

Considered and decided by Smith, Tracy M., Presiding Judge; Slieter, Judge; and
Gaïtas, Judge.
NONPRECEDENTIAL OPINION
SLIETER, Judge
Appellant Douglas County Soci al Services appeals the district court’s decision to
appoint it as successor guardian for Chad Wayne Thornberg in this private guardianship
proceeding. Respondents filed a petition with the district court seeking to be discharged
as co-guardians for Chad Wayne Thornberg and asked for the appointment of a successor
private guardian. In this private guardians hip proceeding, the co -guardians’ petition did
not seek a public guardianship pursuant to Minnesota Statutes chapter 252A, and the
2
requirements of the public guardianship statute were not satisfied. Therefore, we reverse
the district court’s order appointing appellant as public guardian.
FACTS
Respondents Beverly Jean Cullen, Bernar d Myles Cullen, and Heather Sorenson
are, respectively, the mother, stepfather, and sister of Chad Wayne Thornberg. In May
2005, respondents were appointed co-guardians 1 of Thornberg. In March 2021, the co-
guardians filed a petition to be discharged and to appoint Presbyterian Family Foundation
(PFF) as sole successor guardian for Thor nberg. Because PFF would not accept the
guardianship appointment absent a contract with appellant Douglas County Social
Services, the co-guardians also sought an order requiring the county to enter a services
contract with PFF. Although not made explicit by this reco rd, it appears that the county
refused to enter such a contract. PFF did not take part in this proceeding.
Present at the hearing on the petition were the co-guardians w ith their counsel,
Thornberg, who was without counsel, and an assistant county attorney. The district court
declined to order that the coun ty contract with PFF, stati ng it did not believe it had “the
authority to order [the county] to contract with [PFF].” The district court stated, however,
that the guardianship “won’t fail for want of guardian/conservator,” it would “appoint [the
county] as guardian/conservator,” and then the county could either “act in that capacity” or
“contract with whomever” the county chose.

1 Respondents were also appoin ted as co-conservators for Thornberg. For ease of our
analysis and unless otherwise noted, we refer to them only as co-guardians.
3
The district court determined that “[b]as ed on everyone’s appearance . . . at the
hearing,” it would not require an amended pe tition, concluding that “it’s sufficient if
[counsel] just submit a proposed order with the relief.” The district court asked the assistant
county attorney whether she had any additional comments, to which she replied, “No, Your
Honor.” The district court then stated:
And in the meantime, if there are some communications with
[the county] after this hearing an d they want to skip the step
and just have PFF appointed or somebody else, you can just
include that in the order, and otherwise we’ll just appoint [the
county]. And then if they contract with PFF, keep it in-house
or have some other guardian/conservator in mind with however
they are contracting, that’s just fine with me.

The district court issued its written orde r concluding that “Minn. Stat. § 252A.03
supports a public guardianship[] when no other qualified and willing individual is
available,” and it appointed the county as public guardian. The county appeals.
DECISION
“The appointment of a guardian is a matter within the discretion of the district court
and will not be disturbed absent a clear abuse of that discretion.” In re Guardianship of
Autio, 747 N.W.2d 600, 603 (Minn. App. 2008). “The district court abuses its discretion
by improperly applying the law.” In re Guardianship of DeYoung, 801 N.W.2d 211, 216
(Minn. App. 2011) (citation omitted). Questi ons of statutory interpretation are reviewed
de novo. In re Guardianship of Tschumy, 853 N.W.2d 728, 742 (Minn. 2014).
This guardianship was established pursuant to the Minnesota Uniform Guardianship
and Protective Proceedings Act (the Uniform Guardianship Act). Minn. Stat. §§ 524.5-101
4
to -502 (2020). The county argues that the district court erred by appointing it as guardian
in this private guardianship matter. We agree.
The Uniform Guardianship Act plainly precludes the appointment of the county as
guardian:
This article does not app ly to any matters or
proceedings arising under or governed by chapters 252A, 259,
and 260C. Notwithstanding anything else to the contrary,
chapters 252A, 259, and 260C exclusiv ely govern the rights,
duties, and powers of social service agencies, the
commissioner of human servic es, licensed child placing
agencies, and parties with respect to all matters and
proceedings arising under those chapters.

Minn. Stat. § 524.5-106 (emphasi s added). The unambiguous and plain language of the
Uniform Guardianship Act precludes its application to matters “arising under or governed
by chapter 252A”—the Minnesota Public Guar dianship for Adults with Developmental
Disabilities Act (the Pub lic Guardianship Act).
2 See Minn. Stat. §§ 252A.01-.21(2020);
see also Minn. Stat. § 252A.21, subd. 4 (“Nothing in sections 252A.01 to 252A.21 shall
impair the right of individuals to establish private guardians hips or conservatorships in
accordance with applicable law.”).

2 Several sections of the Public Guardiansh ip Act were amended during the 2021 regular
legislative session. See 2021 Minn. Laws ch. 30, art. 13, §§ 4-47, at 600-12. Because none
of those amendments contained an effective date, the amendments were effective August 1,
2021. Minn. Stat. § 645.02 (2020). Here the district court issued its order before August 1,
2021. Therefore, we review its decision pursuant to the unamended statute. We note that
changes to the Public Guardianship Act have removed language permitting a public
conservatorship. See 2021 Minn. Laws ch. 30, art. 13, § 17, at 604 (deleting the option that
the commissioner be appointed to act as “pub lic conservator” pursuant to Minn. Stat.
§ 252A.05 (2020)).
5
The establishment of public guardianship for adults with developmental disabilities
is generally governed by Minn. Stat. §§ 252A.01-.21; Autio, 747 N.W.2d at 602. The
Public Guardianship Act authorizes the commissioner of human services and its designees
to supervise adults with developmental disabilities who are unable to provide for their own
needs and “for whom no qualif ied person is willing and able to seek guardianship or
conservatorship under secti ons 524.5-101 to 524.5-502.” Minn. Stat. § 252A.01,
subd. 1(a)(1). “Public guardianship . . . is the most restrictive form of guardianship . . . and
should be imposed only when no other acceptable alternativ e is available.” Minn. Stat.
§ 252A.01, subd. 1(b); Autio, 747 N.W.2d at 603 (citing Minn. Stat. § 252A.01, subd. 1(b)
(2006)).
Before a district court is presented w ith a petition for public guardianship, the
“commissioner may be nominated in a sworn wr itten request” to act as guardian by an
interested person, the successo r guardian, or the person with a developmental disability.
Minn. Stat. § 252A.03, subd. 1. Thereafter, the Public Guardianship Act provides several
steps prior to the appointment of a public guardian:
 Upon receiving written nomina tion, “the commissioner shall
promptly order the local agency of the county in which the
proposed ward resides to coordinate or arrange for a
comprehensive evaluation of the proposed ward.” Minn. Stat.
§ 252A.04, subd. 1.

 The local agency must prepare and forward the comprehensive
evaluation to the commission er within 90 days of the
commissioner’s order. Minn. Stat. § 252A.04, subd. 3.

 “The commissioner shall accept or reject the nomination in
writing within 20 working da ys of the receipt of a
6
comprehensive evaluation . . . .” Minn. Stat. § 252A.03,
subd. 2.

 The commissioner must accep t the nomination if the
comprehensive evaluation concl udes that 1) the subject is
developmentally disabled, 2) th e subject is in need of a
guardian, and 3) no qualified person is willing to assume
guardianship. Id., subd. 3.

 The commissioner and the petitioner must consider whether
qualified family members are willing to assume guardianship.
Id., subd. 4; Minn. Stat. § 252A.06, subd. 2(6).

 If the commissioner agrees to accept the nomination, the local
agency files a petition with the court. Minn. Stat. § 252A.05.

 Whether the commissioner agrees to accept the nomination, a
petition may be filed by a pe rson with a developmental
disability, a parent, stepparent, spouse or relative. Minn. Stat.
§ 252A.06, subd. 1.

 Upon the filing of a petition, the court shall appoint an attorney
for the proposed person subject to the guardianship unless
counsel is already provided. Minn. Stat. § 252A.09, subd. 1.

None of these steps occurred in this matter. Because the law for appointment of a public
guardian was not followed, the district court abused its discretion in appointing the county
as guardian.
The co-guardians principally argue that th e county may, separa te from the Public
Guardianship Act, be appoin ted as guardian pursuant to th e Uniform Guardianship Act
because the county is a qualified guardian as defined by that statute. See Minn. Stat.
§ 524.5-309(b) (the district court may “app oint a person having a lower priority or no
priority” as guardian); see also Minn. Stat. § 524.5-102, subd. 13 (The Uniform
Guardianship Act defines a “person” among other things, as a “government, governmental
7
subdivision, agency, or instrumentality. . . .”). Theref ore, the co-guardians argue, the
failure to follow the pu blic guardianship steps is not fatal and we should affirm the
appointment. In short, the co-guardians ask that we not reverse merely because the district
court’s decision was based on an incorrect re ason or theory because the district court
ultimately arrived at the correct decision. See Katz v. Katz, 408 N.W.2d 835, 839 (Minn.
1987) (stating that “we will not reverse a corr ect decision simply be cause it is based on
incorrect reasons.”). We are not persuaded.
As we explained, the unambiguous and plain language of the Uniform Guardianship
Act prohibits appointment of the county in the circumstances of this case. Instead, the
requirements set forth in chapter 252A must be met prior to the appointment of the
commissioner at which time “[t]he commissi oner may carry out the powers and duties
prescribed . . . directly or th rough local agencies.” Minn. St at. § 252A.111, subd. 5. We
therefore reverse the district court.
Because we reverse the district court’s order appointing the county as guardian and
that order of appointment al so included the discharge of the co-guardians, the order
discharging the co-guardians is reversed and respondents remain as the co-guardians for
Thornberg pursuant to their appointment by the district court order issued on May 4, 2005.
Reversed.