This opinion is nonprecedential except as provided by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
                                      A23-0805

                Joan Przybilla, as Trustee, for Next of Kin of Rose Kramer,
                                        Respondent,

                                             vs.

                         Vista Prairie at River Heights, LLC, et al.,
                                          Appellants.

                                   Filed March 25, 2024
                                         Affirmed
                                       Worke, Judge

                               Dakota County District Court
                               File No. 19HA-CV-22-3428


Suzanne M. Scheller, Scheller Legal Solutions LLC, Champlin, Minnesota; and

Kenneth L. LaBore, Guardian Legal Services LLC, Edina, Minnesota (for respondent)

William L. Davidson, Ryan C. Ellis, Lind, Jensen, Sullivan & Peterson, P.A., Minneapolis,
Minnesota (for appellants)


       Considered and decided by Worke, Presiding Judge; Frisch, Judge; and Smith,

John P., Judge. *




*
 Retired judge of the Minnesota Court of Appeals, serving by appointment pursuant to
Minn. Const. art. VI, § 10.
                           NONPRECEDENTIAL OPINION

WORKE, Judge

       Appellants challenge the district court’s denial of their motion to dismiss for lack of

subject-matter jurisdiction over a wrongful-death lawsuit. We affirm.

                                          FACTS

       Rose Kramer resided in the memory-care unit at appellant Vista Prairie at River

Heights, LLC (Vista Prairie). In July 2019, Kramer fell and suffered injuries. She died on

October 30, 2019, with the alleged cause of death being complications from her fall.

       In 2021, Kramer’s stepdaughter, respondent Joan Przybilla, as Trustee, for Next of

Kin of Rose Kramer, petitioned to be appointed trustee for Kramer’s next of kin. The

petition alleged that Kramer had: (1) no surviving children or siblings; (2) five

stepchildren, including Przybilla, and (3) two granddaughters. Przybilla signed the petition

in her capacity as Kramer’s stepdaughter. Attached to the petition were five consents to

Przybilla’s appointment as trustee, including consents from both the granddaughters.

       Following a hearing that both Przybilla and one of the granddaughters attended, the

district court signed an order appointing Przybilla as trustee.

       In September 2022, Przybilla, in her capacity as trustee of Kramer’s estate,

commenced a wrongful-death action against Vista Prairie and others alleging medical

malpractice and negligent supervision.

       Vista Prairie moved to dismiss the complaint, arguing that the district court lacked

subject-matter jurisdiction. Vista Prairie argued that Przybilla was not properly appointed

as trustee because, as a stepchild, she was not next of kin and could not bring a petition to


                                              2
appoint herself as trustee. As a result, Vista Prairie contended that the district court lacked

subject-matter jurisdiction over the complaint.

       On February 24, 2023, the district court denied Vista Prairie’s motion to dismiss. It

reasoned that to dismiss Przybilla’s case because one of the granddaughters signed a

consent instead of the petition itself would be to put “form over substance.” Thus, the

district court concluded that it had acted within its discretion to grant Przybilla’s petition

rather than making her refile because the granddaughters and other next of kin signed

consents to the appointment and one of the granddaughters was present at the hearing.

       This appeal followed.

                                        DECISION

       Vista Prairie argues that the district court erred by denying the motion to dismiss for

lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. Subject-matter jurisdiction is a question of law that we

review de novo. Ariola v. City of Stillwater, 

 (Minn. App. 2017), rev.

denied (Minn. Apr. 18, 2017).

       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, 

 (Minn. 1999). In Minnesota, actions for wrongful death

are prohibited by 

 (2022) except as provided for in 

(2022):

                      Subdivision 1. Death action. When death is caused by
              the wrongful act or omission of any person or corporation, the
              trustee appointed as provided in subdivision 3 may maintain an
              action therefor if the decedent might have maintained an



                                              3
              action, had the decedent lived, for an injury caused by the
              wrongful act or omission.
              ....
                      Subd. 3. Trustee for action. Upon written petition by the
              surviving spouse or one of the next of kin, the court having
              jurisdiction of an action falling within the provisions of
              subdivisions 1 or 2, shall appoint a suitable and competent
              person as trustee to commence or continue such action and
              obtain recovery of damages therein. The trustee, before
              commencing duties shall file a consent and oath. Before
              receiving any money, the trustee shall file a bond as security
              therefor in such form and with such sureties as the court may
              require.

.

       For the purpose of the wrongful-death statute, “next of kin” means blood relatives

who are members of the class from which beneficiaries are chosen under 

 (2022), the intestacy statute. See Wynkoop v. Carpenter, 

 (Minn. 1998). Blood relatives necessarily exclude stepchildren. But while we agree

that Przybilla, as Kramer’s stepdaughter, was not Kramer’s next of kin, we disagree that

she failed to comply with the statute.

       The statute requires that a written petition for trustee be brought by the decedent’s

next of kin. See 

, subd. 3. Beyond requiring a writing, the statute

provides no other parameters for what may be considered a “petition” for appointment of

a trustee. Przybilla, who is not Kramer’s next of kin, brought a petition to have herself

appointed as trustee. But attached to the petition were consents from two of Kramer’s next

of kin, the granddaughters. Through these written consents, the granddaughters effectively

petitioned in writing for Przybilla’s appointment. Further, one of the granddaughters

attended the hearing with Przybilla. At the hearing, the district court evaluated the petition


                                              4
and exercised its discretion to appoint Przybilla. See Regie, 399 N.W.2d at 89. Vista

Prairie does not challenge the district court’s factual findings or make arguments about the

statutory language requiring a petition. In these specific circumstances, there is little doubt

that Kramer’s next of kin knowingly approved the petition to appoint Przybilla as trustee.

Thus, we conclude, based on the specific facts and circumstances of this case, that the

district court did not err by denying the motion to dismiss. 1

       Affirmed.




1
  Because we conclude that the district court did not err by denying Vista Prairie’s motion
to dismiss, we need not consider its alternative arguments regarding the amended
complaint.

                                              5