Attorney Cadem has filed a petition to the Minnesota Supreme Court seeking review of whether the high court’s proclamation in Steeves v. Campbell, 508 N.W.2d 817 (1993) remains the state of the law for post-trial motions under Rule 104.01, and to clarify what are now two materially inconsistent rulings by the Court of Appeals on such matters in Bazzaro v. Issaenko, No. A12-2017, 2013 WL 2927431, at 3 (Minn. Ct. App. June 17, 2013) (new trial motion is not authorized in special proceedings) and Aune v. Aune, A15-0094 at 3 (Minn. Ct. App. Feb. 18, 2015) (new trial motion is authorized in special proceedings and tolls the deadline for filing under Rule 104.01).
I believe that a ruling clarifying and harmonizing the law is essential at this juncture. There are more than 13,000 similar proceedings filed in Minnesota every year. The cases, and resulting rulings, implicate child custody, residency, and help protect people from the threat of imminent harm. They therefore present matters of significant priority for the courts and all Minnesotans.