Rule 312.Review of Referee’s Findings or Recommendations
Last amended May 1, 2012 · Last verified July 1, 2026
Full Text of Rule 312
Advisory Committee Comments
Amendment History
- (Amended May 1, 2012.)
Plain-English Summary
Rule 312 doesn't set its own procedure for challenging a referee's findings — it points elsewhere instead. Review of what a district court referee recommends or finds is governed by whatever statute applies to that proceeding, plus any order the Minnesota Supreme Court has issued on the subject.
The rule's advisory committee comment explains why: an older version of Rule 312 used to spell out its own review procedure, but the comment says that no longer fit reality once family court referees came to operate in only a narrow set of courts, each under its own statutory authority or supreme court order. Leaving review to the applicable statute and controlling order, the comment adds, lets each court's actual practice govern instead of a one-size-fits-all rule.
In practice, that means a party facing an adverse referee recommendation needs to look past Title IV entirely. The statute or supreme court order governing that particular court's referee program spells out whether a district judge must confirm the recommendation first, how long a party has to object, and where an appeal goes from there — none of which Rule 312 itself answers.
Frequently Asked Questions
Does Rule 312 set out its own procedure for reviewing a referee's decision?
No. It defers entirely to whatever statute applies and to any order the Minnesota Supreme Court has issued on reviewing that court's referees.
Why doesn't Rule 312 describe a review procedure the way other rules do?
Because family court referees now operate only in limited courts under their own statutory authority or supreme court order, and a single uniform procedure no longer matched how those programs work.
Can a referee's recommendation be appealed directly to the court of appeals?
Rule 312 itself doesn't say — that route runs through the statute or supreme court order governing the particular court's referee program, not through Title IV. The rule's advisory committee comment describes one district where a judge's confirmation of the referee's recommendation has been directly appealable, but that comment is background rather than the rule's own text.
Do all Minnesota family courts use referees?
No. Referees handle family court matters only in a small number of courts operating under their own specific statutory or supreme court authority.
Did Rule 312 always work this way?
No. An earlier version spelled out its own review procedure, which was replaced once that approach stopped matching how the remaining referee programs operate.
Advisory Committee Comment—2012 Amendments
Rule 312 is amended to replace the former rule, which established now-obsolete procedures for review of the findings or recommendations of a district court referee in family law matters. Family court referees are now used in limited circumstances in two districts, and the processes followed are established by statute and supreme court orders. Under Minn. Stat. § 484.65, subd. 9, recommended orders and findings of Fourth Judicial District referees are subject to confirmation by a district court judge, and once confirmed by the district court judge the orders and findings may be appealed directly to the court of appeals. Essentially the same is true in the Second Judicial District under a series of orders establishing a pilot project that is still operating. The history of the pilot project is set forth by the Minnesota Court of Appeals in its Special Term Opinion in Culver v. Culver, 771 N.W.2d 547 (Minn. Ct. App. 2009):
The pilot project came into existence in the Second Judicial District in 1996. See 1996 Minn. Laws ch. 365, § 2 (allowing Second Judicial District to implement pilot project assigning related family matters to single judge or referee); In re Second Judicial Dist. Combined Family, Civil Harassment, Juvenile Probate Jurisdiction Pilot Project, No. CX–89–1863 (Minn. Apr. 10, 1996) (suspending, in light of pilot project, Minn. R. Gen. Prac. 312.01, which recites procedure for district-court review upon filing of petition for review). The suspension is still in effect. See 1998 Minn. Laws ch. 367, art. 11, § 26 (extending pilot-project legislation); 2000 Minn. Law ch. 452, § 1 (same); 2002 Minn. Law ch. 242 (same); In re Second Judicial Dist. Combined Family, Civil Harassment, Juvenile Probate Jurisdiction Pilot Project, No. CX–89–1863 (Minn. June 17, 1998) (extending suspension); (Minn. May 23, 2000) (same); (Minn. June 3, 2002) (extending suspension until further order of supreme court).
Id., n.1.