The Pachecos first argue the district court erred when it found they were not entitled to survivors' economic loss benefits. Their counsel admitted at oral argument, however, that they never actually applied for survivors' economic loss benefits. Because they did not apply for benefits, they were not actually denied benefits and thus the issue was not ripe for a declaratory judgment action. We therefore vacate the district court's decision that the Pachecos were not eligible for survivors' economic loss benefits. Adonya Pacheco also appeals the district court's determination that she was not a dependent of Kingbird at the time of her death.
Questions regarding the existence or extent of dependency are questions of fact.
This court will not set aside a district court's findings of fact unless they are clearly erroneous. Minn. R. Civ. A child under the age of 18 is presumed to be dependent on the parent with whom he is living, or from whom he is receiving support regularly. A child over 18, physically or mentally incapacitated from earning, is also presumed to be a dependent. The district court found that S.K., V.S., and S.P. were presumed to be and were in fact dependents of Kingbird at the time of her death, but Adonya, who was 19, was not.