*714 No party objected to the referee hearing the motion to vacate. In August 1998, the referee issued findings and an order recommending that the motion to vacate be granted. Luban’s counsel served notice of filing of the recommended order. Griffis then moved for “reconsideration and amendment,” identifying specific findings to be amended and citing Minn. R. Civ. P. 52.02 (motion for amended findings). Grif-fis also filed and served objections to the referee’s findings. See Minn. Stat. § 484.70, subd. 7(d) (1998) (review of referee’s recommended findings and order on notice specifying grounds for review and specific provisions disputed); Minn. R. Civ. P. 53.05(b) (party may serve written objections to referee’s report). Later, Griffis filed a request for review of the referee’s recommended decision by a district court judge.

The powers of referees are governed by statute and by rules promulgated by the Minnesota Supreme Court. See, e.g., Minn. Stat. § 484.70 (1998); Minn. R. Civ. P. 53. The supreme court has indicated that “reference to a referee shall be the exception and not the rule.” Minn. R. Civ. P. 53.02. But the legislature has given the chief judges of the district courts broad administrative and assignment authority, which extends to assigning referees “to hear any matter in any court of the judicial district.” Minn. Stat. §§ 484.70, subd. 1 (chief judge may appoint referees, who are subject to administrative authority and assignment power of the chief judge; assignments not limited “to family, probate, juvenile, or special term” matters), 484.69, subd. 3 (1998) (chief judge shall make assignments to serve on various courts within the district).

+ 8 more citations in this opinion.

In Re Custody of ASR · 1995 3 citations

+ 3 more citations in this opinion.

Ruppert v. Schmidt · 1995 3 citations

+ 3 more citations in this opinion.

Hennepin County v. Hanneman · 1991 1 citation

+ 1 more citation in this opinion.

Marriage of James v. James · 1986 2 citations

+ 2 more citations in this opinion.

Marriage of Warner v. Warner · 1986 2 citations

1. Respondent argues that this appeal must be dismissed because appellant failed to first request review by the trial judge. Minn. Stat. § 484.70, subd. 7(c) (1984) provides in part as follows: