This opinion is nonprecedential except as provided by Minn.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 A25-0052
In re the Marriage of:
Brian Wayne Kusie, petitioner, Appellant,
vs.
Stephanie Louise Kusie, Respondent.
Filed September 2, 2025 Reversed Wheelock, Judge
Hennepin County District Court File No. 27-FA-13-3318
Brian W. Kusie, Andover, Minnesota (pro se appellant)
Gillian J. Blomquist, Wermerskirchen & Blomquist, LLC, Wayzata, Minnesota (for respondent)
Considered and decided by Wheelock, Presiding Judge; Ross, Judge; and Connolly,
Judge.
NONPRECEDENTIAL OPINION
WHEELOCK, Judge
Appellant challenges the district court’s order determining that he is a frivolous
litigant and imposing filing restrictions on him pursuant to Minnesota General Rule of
Practice 9, arguing that the district court lacked jurisdiction to impose rule 9 frivolous-litigant relief based on an appellate court filing. Because a rule 9 sanction cannot
be premised on an appellate court filing, we reverse.
FACTS
Appellant father Brian Wayne Kusie filed a motion to modify child support, medical
support, and arrearage payments, and the district court denied it. Father appealed the
denial. 1 Respondent mother Stephanie Louise Kusie moved the district court to declare
father a frivolous litigant based on his filing of that notice of appeal, and the district court
granted her motion. The present appeal is of the order granting mother’s motion.
The parties dissolved their marriage in 2014 and have been litigating matters related
to the dissolution of their marriage for over a decade. Father, in particular, has submitted
such a high volume of filings that the district court imposed filing restrictions upon him in
2019. 2
When the district court lifted father’s filing restrictions in 2021, it observed that
mother or the district court could invoke rule 9 of the Minnesota General Rules of Practice
or rule 11 of the Minnesota Rules of Civil Procedure with respect to father and that “it may
be that such steps would be appropriate in the future,” but that, because they had not already
done so, the district court could not grant mother’s then-pending request to designate father
as a frivolous litigant “given the current procedural stage of th[e] case.”
1 This court recently filed an opinion on the merits of father’s appeal. Kusie v. Kusie, No. A24-1136 (Minn. App. Aug. 18, 2025). 2 Mother maintains that father previously had been declared a frivolous litigant pursuant to rule 9 of the Minnesota General Rules of Practice; however, it is not clear from the record whether these earlier filing restrictions were formally imposed pursuant to rule 9.
2 In its order lifting the restrictions, the district court also made numerous
observations about father’s conduct. It stated that “father’s pleadings are so full of vitriol
and side complaints about mother that it is difficult to understand what, other than spite,
the basis is for his request to change parenting time, change schools, or change the location
of activities.” The district court also observed that father had “brought meritless claims
that largely repeat his prior failed requests for an equal parenting time schedule, having
been expressly warned in the past about the harm caused by such litigious behavior,” and
“that father [had] unreasonably contributed to the length and expense of the[] proceedings.”
Notwithstanding the district court’s admonitions in 2021, father has continued to
excessively litigate various issues.
As indicated above, this appeal is related to father’s most recent motion to modify
child support, medical support, and arrearage payments, which mother opposed. In her
responsive pleading, mother made numerous requests for relief that included
conduct-based attorney fees she incurred responding to father’s motion, leave to file a
motion declaring father a frivolous litigant, and mediation or modification of parenting
time. The district court denied father’s motion.
Father then filed a notice of appeal, after which mother served a motion and
supporting affidavit upon father “[p]ursuant to Rule 9 of the Minnesota General Rules of
Practice, demanding that he withdraw the appeal. Mother asserted that, “[s]hould [father]
choose not to withdraw the appeal,” she would request that the district court declare father
“to be a frivolous litigant under Rule 9.”
3 Father did not withdraw his appeal, and after twenty-one days had elapsed, mother
moved the district court to declare father a frivolous litigant. The district court held a
hearing regarding mother’s motion, receiving argument from both parties. Father, who had
recently graduated from law school and was planning to take the bar exam, represented
himself.
Father argued that the district court did not have jurisdiction to rule on mother’s
rule 9 motion because nothing was pending before the district court; rather, at the time
mother filed the motion, father’s appeal was pending before this court. Mother argued that
she had properly filed her rule 9 motion and that the district court had jurisdiction to hear
it because it was collateral or supplemental to father’s appeal of the district court’s order.
The district court then granted mother’s motion, declaring father a frivolous litigant and
imposing filing restrictions upon him.
Father now appeals the district court’s order declaring him a frivolous litigant.
DECISION
Father argues that the district court lacked jurisdiction to declare him a frivolous
litigant. 3 The district court granted mother’s motion after determining that it had
3 Father also argues that the district court erred by failing to make a finding that his filings were in “bad faith,” but we reject this argument. We understand that a factor district courts consider in weighing whether frivolous-litigant sanctions are appropriate is “whether the claim, motion, or request was made for purposes of harassment, delay, or vexatiousness, or otherwise in bad faith.” Minn. R. Gen. Prac. 9.02(b)(3) (emphasis added). However, rule 9 does not require that district courts make an express bad-faith finding when providing frivolous-litigant relief, and this court recently issued a nonprecedential opinion declining to reach this argument when, like father, the appellant did not provide additional authority to support it. See Riverstone v. Stempfley, No. A23-0933, 2024 WL 4587803, at *6 (Minn. App. Oct. 28, 2024) (reasoning that the appellant cited “no authority for her
4 jurisdiction to provide relief pursuant to rule 9 and imposed filing restrictions on father
because, pursuant to Minnesota Rule of Civil Appellate Procedure 108.01, subdivision 1,
the district court “retains jurisdiction as to matters independent of, supplemental to, or
collateral to the order or judgment appealed from.”
To decide whether the district court properly declared father a frivolous litigant, we
must determine whether rule 9 applies to a notice of appeal. We review a district court’s
frivolous-litigant determination for an abuse of discretion. See Szarzynski v. Szarzynski,
732 N.W.2d 285, 295 (Minn. App. 2007) (reversing determination that litigant was a
“nuisance” because “it is unclear whether the district court applied” Minn. R. Gen.
Prac.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
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 A25-0052
In re the Marriage of:
Brian Wayne Kusie, petitioner, Appellant,
vs.
Stephanie Louise Kusie, Respondent.
Filed September 2, 2025 Reversed Wheelock, Judge
Hennepin County District Court File No. 27-FA-13-3318
Brian W. Kusie, Andover, Minnesota (pro se appellant)
Gillian J. Blomquist, Wermerskirchen & Blomquist, LLC, Wayzata, Minnesota (for respondent)
Considered and decided by Wheelock, Presiding Judge; Ross, Judge; and Connolly,
Judge.
NONPRECEDENTIAL OPINION
WHEELOCK, Judge
Appellant challenges the district court’s order determining that he is a frivolous
litigant and imposing filing restrictions on him pursuant to Minnesota General Rule of
Practice 9, arguing that the district court lacked jurisdiction to impose rule 9 frivolous-litigant relief based on an appellate court filing. Because a rule 9 sanction cannot
be premised on an appellate court filing, we reverse.
FACTS
Appellant father Brian Wayne Kusie filed a motion to modify child support, medical
support, and arrearage payments, and the district court denied it. Father appealed the
denial. 1 Respondent mother Stephanie Louise Kusie moved the district court to declare
father a frivolous litigant based on his filing of that notice of appeal, and the district court
granted her motion. The present appeal is of the order granting mother’s motion.
The parties dissolved their marriage in 2014 and have been litigating matters related
to the dissolution of their marriage for over a decade. Father, in particular, has submitted
such a high volume of filings that the district court imposed filing restrictions upon him in
2019. 2
When the district court lifted father’s filing restrictions in 2021, it observed that
mother or the district court could invoke rule 9 of the Minnesota General Rules of Practice
or rule 11 of the Minnesota Rules of Civil Procedure with respect to father and that “it may
be that such steps would be appropriate in the future,” but that, because they had not already
done so, the district court could not grant mother’s then-pending request to designate father
as a frivolous litigant “given the current procedural stage of th[e] case.”
1 This court recently filed an opinion on the merits of father’s appeal. Kusie v. Kusie, No. A24-1136 (Minn. App. Aug. 18, 2025). 2 Mother maintains that father previously had been declared a frivolous litigant pursuant to rule 9 of the Minnesota General Rules of Practice; however, it is not clear from the record whether these earlier filing restrictions were formally imposed pursuant to rule 9.
2 In its order lifting the restrictions, the district court also made numerous
observations about father’s conduct. It stated that “father’s pleadings are so full of vitriol
and side complaints about mother that it is difficult to understand what, other than spite,
the basis is for his request to change parenting time, change schools, or change the location
of activities.” The district court also observed that father had “brought meritless claims
that largely repeat his prior failed requests for an equal parenting time schedule, having
been expressly warned in the past about the harm caused by such litigious behavior,” and
“that father [had] unreasonably contributed to the length and expense of the[] proceedings.”
Notwithstanding the district court’s admonitions in 2021, father has continued to
excessively litigate various issues.
As indicated above, this appeal is related to father’s most recent motion to modify
child support, medical support, and arrearage payments, which mother opposed. In her
responsive pleading, mother made numerous requests for relief that included
conduct-based attorney fees she incurred responding to father’s motion, leave to file a
motion declaring father a frivolous litigant, and mediation or modification of parenting
time. The district court denied father’s motion.
Father then filed a notice of appeal, after which mother served a motion and
supporting affidavit upon father “[p]ursuant to Rule 9 of the Minnesota General Rules of
Practice, demanding that he withdraw the appeal. Mother asserted that, “[s]hould [father]
choose not to withdraw the appeal,” she would request that the district court declare father
“to be a frivolous litigant under Rule 9.”
3 Father did not withdraw his appeal, and after twenty-one days had elapsed, mother
moved the district court to declare father a frivolous litigant. The district court held a
hearing regarding mother’s motion, receiving argument from both parties. Father, who had
recently graduated from law school and was planning to take the bar exam, represented
himself.
Father argued that the district court did not have jurisdiction to rule on mother’s
rule 9 motion because nothing was pending before the district court; rather, at the time
mother filed the motion, father’s appeal was pending before this court. Mother argued that
she had properly filed her rule 9 motion and that the district court had jurisdiction to hear
it because it was collateral or supplemental to father’s appeal of the district court’s order.
The district court then granted mother’s motion, declaring father a frivolous litigant and
imposing filing restrictions upon him.
Father now appeals the district court’s order declaring him a frivolous litigant.
DECISION
Father argues that the district court lacked jurisdiction to declare him a frivolous
litigant. 3 The district court granted mother’s motion after determining that it had
3 Father also argues that the district court erred by failing to make a finding that his filings were in “bad faith,” but we reject this argument. We understand that a factor district courts consider in weighing whether frivolous-litigant sanctions are appropriate is “whether the claim, motion, or request was made for purposes of harassment, delay, or vexatiousness, or otherwise in bad faith.” Minn. R. Gen. Prac. 9.02(b)(3) (emphasis added). However, rule 9 does not require that district courts make an express bad-faith finding when providing frivolous-litigant relief, and this court recently issued a nonprecedential opinion declining to reach this argument when, like father, the appellant did not provide additional authority to support it. See Riverstone v. Stempfley, No. A23-0933, 2024 WL 4587803, at *6 (Minn. App. Oct. 28, 2024) (reasoning that the appellant cited “no authority for her
4 jurisdiction to provide relief pursuant to rule 9 and imposed filing restrictions on father
because, pursuant to Minnesota Rule of Civil Appellate Procedure 108.01, subdivision 1,
the district court “retains jurisdiction as to matters independent of, supplemental to, or
collateral to the order or judgment appealed from.”
To decide whether the district court properly declared father a frivolous litigant, we
must determine whether rule 9 applies to a notice of appeal. We review a district court’s
frivolous-litigant determination for an abuse of discretion. See Szarzynski v. Szarzynski,
732 N.W.2d 285, 295 (Minn. App. 2007) (reversing determination that litigant was a
“nuisance” because “it is unclear whether the district court applied” Minn. R. Gen.
Prac. 9.01 and noting that a district court’s use of an incorrect standard is an abuse of
discretion). And “Minnesota appellate courts interpret general rules of practice de novo.”
Cmty. Cares v. Faulkner, 949 N.W.2d 296, 297 (Minn. App. 2020), rev. denied (Minn.
Nov. 17, 2020). In construing court rules, we first consider the rule’s plain language and
its purpose. Rubey v. Vannet, 714 N.W.2d 417, 421 (Minn. 2006); see also Vandenheuvel
v. Wagner, 690 N.W.2d 753, 755 (Minn. 2005) (“[T]he words of a court rule, like those of
a statute, must be taken and construed in the sense in which they were understood and
intended at the time the rule was promulgated.” (quotation omitted)).
The Minnesota General Rules of Practice apply “in all trial courts of the state.”
Minn. R. Gen. Prac. 1.01. A notice of appeal, however, is filed “with the clerk of the
assertion that bad faith is a required finding” and thus concluding that the court “need not consider this argument”). Nonprecedential opinions are not binding on this court, but they may be persuasive authority. Minn. R. Civ. App. P. 136.01, subd. 1(c).
5 appellate courts.” Minn. R. Civ. App. P. 103.01, subd. 1. Here, mother’s rule 9 motion
asked the district court to rule that father was a frivolous litigant based on father’s notice
of appeal, which is an appellate court filing. Because the plain meaning of rule 1.01 is that
the general rules of practice apply only to district courts and a notice of appeal is an
appellate court filing, we conclude that the district court misapplied the law when it granted
mother’s request to declare father a frivolous litigant for failing to withdraw his notice of
appeal with this court.
The purpose and structure of rule 9 support this conclusion. Rule 9 provides that a
litigant can obtain rule-9 relief only after giving their opponent an opportunity to withdraw
or correct their filing. See Minn. R. Gen. Prac. 9.01. The rule also grants district courts
the authority to order that frivolous litigants furnish security before filing future claims,
id., and provides that “claim(s) subject to the security requirement may be dismissed,”
Minn. R. Gen. Prac. 9.03. We further observe that, as we reasoned in Kedrowski v.
Kedrowski, applying rule 9 to the appellate courts “would present conflicts between district
and appellate court jurisdiction.” No. A19-1610, 2020 WL 3638787, at *4 (Minn. App.
July 6, 2020). 4
Mother argues that whether father is a frivolous litigant is collateral to the
family-law proceedings and that, therefore, Minnesota Rule of Civil Appellate
4 As mentioned before, “nonprecedential opinions may be cited as persuasive authority.” Minn. R. Civ. App. P. 136.01, subd. 1(c).
6 Procedure 108.01, subdivision 2, permits the district court to declare father a frivolous
litigant. Rule 108 states, in part:
the filing of a timely and proper appeal suspends the trial court’s authority to make any order that affects the order or judgment appealed from, although the trial court retains jurisdiction as to matters independent of, supplemental to, or collateral to the order or judgment appealed from.
Minn. R. Civ. App. P. 108.01, subd. 2. Because, under rule 108.01, subdivision 2, the
district court retains authority to address matters distinct from the appeal, we agree that, if
mother filed her motion in district court to declare father a frivolous litigant when there
were matters pending in district court that would allow the district court to grant her motion,
then it could do so. Here, however, when mother filed her motion to declare father a
frivolous litigant, not only was nothing pending in district court, but the motion was based
on filings father made in this court. As noted, Minn. R. Gen. Prac. 1.01 limits the
application of Minn. R. Gen. Prac. 9 to district court matters—meaning that appellate
filings are not a basis for a district court to declare someone to be a frivolous litigant under
rule 9. Thus, mother’s argument is not persuasive because, regardless of rule 108.01,
subdivision 2, basing frivolous-litigant relief under rule 9 upon a notice of appeal
constitutes a misapplication of law.
The record demonstrates ample support for mother’s frivolous-litigant motion.
However, mother requested frivolous-litigant relief based on father’s notice of appeal—an
appellate court filing. Because the Minnesota General Rules of Practice do not apply to
7 the appellate courts, the district court misapplied the law by granting mother’s motion, and
we reverse the district court’s order declaring father a frivolous litigant.
Reversed.