Minn. Gen. R. Prac. 145.07
When an action is brought by a general guardian appointed and bonded by a court of competent jurisdiction, the requirements of this rule may be modified as deemed desirable by the court because of bonding or other action taken by the appointing court, except that there must be compliance with the settlement approval requirements of Section 540.08 of the Minnesota Statutes or amendments thereof.
Minn. Gen. R. Prac. 145.07
Advisory Committee Comment - 2000 Amendments
This rule is derived from Minnesota Statutes, section 540.08(1990) and Rule 3 of the Code of Rules for the District Courts.
The Task Force considered it a thoughtful recommendation that a minor's social security number be required to be included on all minor settlement petitions. Such a requirement would make it easier to locate a minor at the time of reaching majority. The Task Force ultimately concluded, however, the privacy interests dictate that the inclusion of this number should not be mandatory. The information may nonetheless be required by the financial institution with which the funds are deposited, and many lawyers will routinely include it in petitions in order to facilitate locating the minor should the need arise.
The 1994 amendment of Rule 145.02(c) allows the filing of medical records in lieu of a full report of each health care provider where those records provide the information necessary to evaluate the settlement. This may be especially appropriate where the injuries are not severe, or where the cost of obtaining reports would represent a substantial portion of the settlement proceeds. The court can, in any case, require any further information or reports deemed necessary to permit the court to discharge its duty to evaluate the overall fairness of the settlement to the minor.
Rule 145.02(d) is new. It is designed to advise the court of factors to take into consideration when approving or disapproving a settlement on behalf of the minor or incompetent person. Rule 145.02(e) is added in 1992 to provide the court in the petition the information necessary for the court to make the determination required by Rule 145.06(a). Although the parties are the obvious source of the cost information necessary to make the cost determination, the rule explicitly requires the petition to include this information. This information must be disclosed by the parties, and not only the party filing the petition, as often the tortfeasor will have the only accurate information on this subject.
Rule 145.03 is new. It addresses a situation where a tortfeasor or insurer has negotiated a settlement with a minor's family or guardian, and court approval of that settlement is necessary. Oftentimes the plaintiff does not wish to incur attorney's fees to obtain that approval, so as a part of the settlement, the tortfeasor or the insurer makes the arrangements to draft and present the petition. The court needs to be satisfied that the settlement is fair. The Task Force discussed at length whether or not a lawyer hired and paid by an insurer or tortfeasor should be permitted to represent the minor or incompetent person to obtain the approval of the court. It was decided that the petitioner should not be compelled to obtain counsel, and that "arranged counsel" may appear, provided that there is full disclosure to the petitioner of the interests of the insurer or tortfeasor.
Rule 145.03(b) is new and is designed to provide a procedure for the court to obtain advice to evaluate the reasonableness of a settlement. The court may appoint a lawyer selected by the petitioner or the court may designate a lawyer of its own choice. In either case, where a referral is made under this section, the lawyer accepting the referral may not represent the petitioner to pursue the claim, should the petition be denied by the court. Rule 145.03(d) provides that the cost of the consultation provided for in Rule 145.03(b) shall be born equally by the petitioner and the tortfeasor or insurer.
Finally, Rule 145.03(d) provides that any opinions rendered by a selected lawyer on behalf of the minor or incompetent person are advisory only.
Rule 145.05(d) expands the types of investments that may be used in managing the settlement proceeds while retaining the requirements of security of investment. It incorporates Minnesota Statutes, section 540.08(1990) regarding structured settlements, and it allows that settlements may include a medical assurance agreement. A medical assurance agreement is a contract whereby future medical expenses of an undetermined amount will be paid by a designated person or entity.
Rule 145.05(e)(5) requires that funds placed in certificates of deposit or other deposits with fixed maturities have those maturities adjusted so they do not mature after the age of majority. This rule places the burden on the financial institution by the notice to be included in the order for deposit.
Rule 145.06 is new. It establishes criteria for approval of structured settlements, and it requires the court to determine the cost of the annuity to insure that the periodic payments reflect a cost comparable to a reasonable settlement amount. Where a minor or incompetent receives a verdict representing future damages greater than $100,000 and the guardian determines that a structured settlement pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 549.25(1990) would be in the best interests of the minor or incompetent person, this rule shall apply to the implementation of the election pursuant to the statute. The amendment of the rule in 1995 (effective January 1, 1996) is intended to make it clear that it is important that the original annuity policy be retained by the court administrator, and that this is for the purpose of security, not establishing any ownership interest which might affect the tax treatment of the settlement.
Rule 145.06(b) is modified by amendment in 2000. The amendment is intended to require the court approving a minor settlement that includes a structured settlement provision to verify that the annuity issuer is licensed to do business and that Minnesota Statutes, sections 549.30 -.34 (1998) is followed. The amendment is not intended to impose any additional substantive requirements, as compliance with statutes is assumed under the current rule. The rule will require the trial court to verify the fact of compliance, however, and will probably require submitting this information to the court.
.