In re the Guardianship of: Robert J. Stutelberg.

This opinion is nonprecedential except as provided by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
A21-1063

In re the Guardianship of: Robert J. Stutelberg.

Filed August 8, 2022
Affirmed
Smith, Tracy M., Judge

Hennepin County District Court
File No. 27-GC-PR-13-598

Stacy L. Kabele, Kabele Law Firm, LLC, Eden Prairie, Minnesota (for appellant Robert
Stutelberg)

Michael Patrick Stutelberg, Tomahawk, Wisconsin (pro se respondent)

Considered and decided by Larkin, Presiding Judge; Connolly , Judge; and Smith,
Tracy M., Judge.
NONPRECEDENTIAL OPINION
SMITH, TRACY M., Judge
Appellant Robert Stutelberg challenges the district court’s denial of his petition to
terminate his guardianship or, in the alternative, to replace his current guardian—his
brother, respondent Michael Stutelberg— with a professional guardian.1 We affirm.

1 Because they share the same last name, we refer to the parties by their first names
throughout this opinion.

2
FACTS
Robert is a 54-year-old man who is diagnosed with paranoid schizophrenia. He has
been subject to guardianship since 2008— an emergency guardianship beginning in
December 2008, followed by a permanent guardianship in 2009. His initial guardianship
was supported by the expert opinion of a board-certified psychiatrist, who noted that Robert
“has a vast unsystematized delusional system that divides humankind into two groups” and
that this delusional system “renders him unable to care for himself entirely,
and . . . irreversibly incapable of managing his own affairs and responsibilities.”
Roberts’s mother was appointed as his permanent guardian in March 2011. His
mother eventually became ill, and his brother Michael was appointed successor guardian
on February 13, 2017.
Robert filed a petition to terminate his guardianship in January 2021 and, in March
2021, filed an amended petition to remove Michael as guardian and to permit Robert to
choose a professional guardian, subject to the district court’s approval, to serve as successor
guardian. The district court held a trial via videoconference, at which both Robert and
Michael testified. Michael submitted as an exhibit a written statement describing his role
as his brother’s guardian and his thoughts on why the guardianship should continue. Robert
submitted a number of exhibits, including a “Manifesto” that he had written and his written
response to Michael’s statement.
Following the trial, the district court denied Robert’s amended petition. The district
court found that clear and convincing evidence established that Robert continues to be
3
incapacitated and is unable to meet his own personal needs. The district court also
determined that it was appropriate for Michael to continue to serve as guardian.
Robert appeals.
DECISION
Appellate courts review decisions regarding terminating or modifying a
guardianship for an abuse of discretion. See In re Conservatorship of Brady, 607 N.W.2d
781, 784 (Minn. 2000). A reviewing court will not set aside factual findings unless clearly
erroneous, “giving due regard” to the district court’s determinations regarding the
credibility of witnesses. See In re Guardianship of Pates, 823 N.W.2d 881, 885 (Minn.
App. 2012) (quotation omitted). The district court abuses its discretion when it improperly
applies the law. In re Guardianship of DeYoung, 801 N.W.2d 211, 216 (Minn. App. 2011).
I. The record supports the district court’s denial of the petition to terminate the
guardianship.

Robert argues that the district court erred by denying his petition to terminate the
guardianship because the evidence establishes that he can exercise all powers of
guardianship without the assistance or protection of a guardian.
A district court may appoint a guardian if it finds by clear and convincing evidence
that the person for whom a guardianship is sought is an incapacitated person and their needs
cannot be met by less restrictive means. Minn. Stat. § 524.5-310(a) (2020). After a
guardianship is established, a person subject to guardianship may petition for termination
of the guardianship on the ground that “the person subject to guardianship no longer needs
the assistance or protection of a guardian.” Minn. Stat. § 524.5-317(b) (2020). To support
4
termination, the petitioner must present evidence establishing a “prima facie case for
termination.” Id. (c) (2020). If the petitioner establishes a prima facie case for termination,
the district court must terminate the guardianship unless it is proved that continuation of
the guardianship is in the best interest of the person subject to guardianship. Id.
As an initial matter, we note that Robert does not frame his argument in terms of
whether he established a prima facie case for termination or whether, if he did, continuation
of the guardianship was in his best interest. We also observe that the district court did not
frame its analysis in those terms either. Nevertheless, we conclude that the district court’s
factual finding that Robert continues to be an incapacitated person justifies denial of
Robert’s petition to terminate.
But Robert argues that the district court’s factual finding that he continued to need
a guardianship was erroneous, asserting that he credibly testified about his ability to
independently exercise each of the individual powers of guardianship. It is true that Robert
testified regarding his ability to meet his needs and that the district court found that his
testimony demonstrated that he had improved since the appointment of the guardian. But
the district court also found that clear and convincing evidence established that Robert
lacks sufficient understanding or capacity to make personal decisions and is unable to meet
personal needs for medical care, nutrition, clothing, shelter, or safety. This finding is
supported by the record.
The record includes Michael’s testimony, which the district court found credible,
Robert’s testimony, and exhibits submitted by Michael and Robert. Robert testified that he
suffers from major depression, schizoaffective disorder, and paranoid schizophrenia.
5
Michael testified regarding Robert’s inability to manage his affairs because of his mental
illness. For example, Michael described concerns regarding medical care that have arisen
from Robert’s scheduling medical appointments with numerous doctors and hiding his
appointments from his group home and from Michael. Michael also testified about how
upset Robert became when Robert’s group home staff and Michael rescheduled Robert’s
eye-surgery appointment because another resident was diagnosed with COVID- 19 and
Robert had been exposed. Michael testified that, without his intervention, Robert would
have gone to the surgery without taking any precautions and without informing others that
he had been exposed to COVID-19.
Michael also testified regarding Robert’s housing needs. He explained that, while
he wants Robert to have as much freedom as he can handle in housing matters and he does
not oppose Robert’s wish to move to a more independent living situation, Robert does not
understand the costs of independent living and his beliefs limit his placement options.
These beliefs are reflected in the “Manifesto” that Robert submitted as an exhibit. In it,
Robert explains that the world is divided into two groups —Christian Reducing
Evolutionists and Satanic Overpopulation Creationists—and that war is inevitable between
these two groups. Michael testified that Robert is dismissive of persons whom he believes
fall in the latter category and that he uses their status within that category as justification
for not cooperating with them.
Robert testified on cross-examination that he continues to believe everything in his
manifesto to be true. Robert also testified that he feels grief because Michael is not a
member of the Christian Reducing Evolutionists and that he wants Michael, whom he
6
loves, to “sign on” to that group so Michael will come out of the war between the two
groups in one piece.
On this record, the district court did not clearly err by finding that Robert is unable
to make person al decisions and meet his own personal needs. Based on this finding , the
district court did not abuse its discretion by denying Robert’s petition to terminate his
guardianship.
II. The record supports the district court’s denial of the request to replace Michael
as guardian.

Robert next argues that, even if the district court did not err in its decision to
continue his guardianship, the district court erred by denying his request to remove Michael
as guardian and to let him choose a professional guardian, subject to the district court’s
approval. A district court has broad discretion regarding whether to modify a guardianship,
and “may make any other order” or “may grant other appropriate relief” that “is in the best
interests of the person subject to guardianship.” Minn. Stat. § 524.5-317(b). Robert asserts
that the district court should have granted his request because letting him choose a
professional guardian would not result in any harm to him since his choice would be subject
to the district court’s approval.
The district court decided that it was appropriate for Michael to continue to serve as
guardian. To support his request in the district court, Robert testified that Michael denied
him emergency medical services by canceling and rescheduling his eye surgery and that
Michael denied him a change in his housing. In its decision, the district court recognized
Robert’s testimony, but it also explained that it found Michael’s testimony “to be
7
persuasive when reviewing the evidence as a whole.” The district court cited Michael’s
testimony regarding the health-related reason for rescheduling Robert’s eye surgery and
Michael’s testimony regarding his support for a more independent living situation for
Robert as long as accommodating Robert’s preferred housing criteria (such as no security
cameras) does not sacrifice the quality of the living environment. The district court found
Michael’s testimony credible, and we defer to that finding. See Pates, 823 N.W.2d at 887-
88. We discern no abuse of discretion in the district court’s decision to deny Robert’s
request to replace Michael as guardian.
Affirmed.