Family member accuses bank of driving estate into bankruptcy
By Kevin Featherly
BridgeTower Media Newswires
MINNEAPOLIS, MN — Though it threw out most of her claims as redundant, a Court of Appeals panel has ordered a trial judge to determine whether a Prince heir was civilly assaulted by an estate officer.
The unpublished, 22-page ruling by Judge John R. Rodenberg remands Sharon L. Nelson’s civil-assault claim against Comerica Bank trust officer Andrea Bruce back to Carver County District Court.
The charge stems from an incident during an heir’s meeting with Comerica trust officers in February 2017. There, Nelson wrote in a November 2017 court filing, the trust officers where “hostile and threating” to family members and told them they would have no influence over decisions made on behalf of Prince’s estate.
The family said that violated the understanding they had at the time Comerica took the estate over from Otto Bremer Trust, that Prince’s family would have say over key decisions, Nelson wrote.
The assault allegation does not appear to involve any physical contact.
According to Nelson’s civil complaint—filed separately from the probate case—Bruce “plac[ed] her own face less than six inches in front of [Nelson’s] face” and yelled “that she would have no voice or influence on decisions and that there would be no distributions.”
Bruce is a vice president and manager in Comerica’s Unique Assets Group, according to her LinkedIn page.
Within a month, Nelson was publicly accusing Comerica of driving the estate into bankruptcy. In September 2017, the family learned that Comerica had moved Prince’s unreleased music from a Paisley Park vault to a facility in Hollywood, California.
“Learning that the Vault’s contents had been taken from Paisley Park made me feel as though Prince had died again,” Nelson’s November 2017 filing says.
By the end of that year, Sharon Nelson and two other heirs petitioned to have Comerica removed as estate representative. The probate court refused. In early 2019, the family petitioned to limit Comerica’s powers over the estate, but again was denied.
Nelson sued in District Court, acting pro se, in February 2019. She charged Comerica with breach of fiduciary duty, fraudulent misrepresentation and civil conspiracy, as well as the alleged civil assault.
Comerica’s lawyers moved to either dismiss the complaint or have it consolidated with the ongoing probate action. They also sought sanctions for “frivolous claims that were previously rejected” by the probate court.
District Court Judge Kevin Eide, who presided over Prince’s probate case since shortly after the musician’s April 2016 death, retired on June 19.
In his Oct. 17, 2019, ruling, Eide granted Comerica’s motion to dismiss Nelson’s civil-assault claim without prejudice, citing “the interest of judicial economy and to avoid confusion,” while still allowing her to pursue the claim separately.
The rest of Nelson’s complaint, Eide ruled, was either barred or failed to state a claim. He also levied $28,245 in sanctions. She appealed on Nov. 12, 2019, this time represented by Minneapolis’ Thom Ellingson, P.L.L.P., law firm. Fredrikson & Byron lawyers represented Comerica in the appeal.
The three-judge appeals panel that heard it—Rodenberg, Kevin G. Ross and Francis J. Connolly—mostly agreed with Eide that Nelson’s claims were barred.
However, as to the assault claim, they ruled that res judicata—the principle that a matter has previously been adjudicated by a competent court—did not apply. Unlike Nelson’s other claims, the panel ruled, no court had heard the assault claim before.
Whether Bruce’s behavior constituted a genuine threat of bodily harm, or whether Nelson reasonably expected she would be injured, are factual questions. Those can’t form the basis for dismissal under Rule 12 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, the appellate panel ruled.
“We conclude that the District Court erred by dismissing appellant’s civil-assault claim,” Monday’s ruling says. “We reverse the dismissal of that claim and remand for further proceedings.”
In other respects, the Court of Appeals found that the District Court did not abuse its discretion. The panel allowed the sanctions award to stand, but ordered the trial court to recalculate respondents’ fees and costs in light of Nelson’s successful appeal on the assault claim.
When the District Court takes the case back, the panel further ordered, it also must resolve Comerica’s still-pending motion to consolidate the assault claim into the main, pending probate action.
