Minn. Stat § 480A.08, subd. 3 (1996)
STATE OF MINNESOTA
IN COURT OF APPEALS
general guardian of V.S., S.K., and S.P.,
State Farm Mutual Automobile
* Retired judge of the district court, serving as judge of the Minnesota Court of Appeals by appointment pursuant to Minn. Const. art. VI, § 10.
Carlton County District Court
File No. C2961108
Steven J. Sheridan, Brian R. McCarthy, Magie, Andresen, Haag, Paciotti, Butterworth & McCarthy, P.A., 1000 Alworth Building, P.O. Box 745, Duluth, MN 55801 (for respondent)
Considered and decided by Crippen, Presiding Judge, Peterson, Judge, and Mansur, Judge.
This appeal challenges the district court's decision that Adonya Pacheco was not a dependent of decedent Teresa Kingbird at the time of her death, that Kingbird's children were not entitled to survivors' economic loss benefits, and that they were not entitled to statutory interest. We affirm in part, reverse in part, and vacate the judgment in part.
At the time of Kingbird's death, all four of her children, Adonya Pacheco, V.S., S.K. and S.P. (the Pachecos), lived with her and received their support from her. Kingbird's income consisted of $621 a month from Aid for Families with Dependent Children (AFDC) and $325 a month in food stamps.
In August 1996, State Farm tendered its liability limit of $50,000 to the trustee of Kingbird's surviving heirs. In July of that year, State Farm paid $2,000 for Kingbird's burial expenses. Adonya Pacheco, the oldest of Kingbird's children, individually, and as guardian of her younger siblings, then informed State Farm that they intended to claim no-fault survivors' economic loss benefits.
In reply, State Farm sent the Pachecos an application for benefits. The application included a release allowing State Farm to obtain information from the Department of Human Services on the welfare benefits received by Pacheco and Kingbird. Rather than submit the application, the Pachecos brought a declaratory judgment action asking the court to find they were entitled to no-fault survivors' economic loss benefits. The district court found that the Pachecos were ineligible for survivors' economic loss benefits because Kingbird supported her family through AFDC and food stamps.
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. Minn. Stat. § 65B.44, subd. 6. A child over 18, physically or mentally incapacitated from earning, is also presumed to be a dependent. Id.
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. Adonya Pacheco has offered no evidence she was physically or mentally unable to support herself. Furthermore, Adonya became the guardian of her younger siblings after Kingbird's death and thus would have lost any dependent status she may have had. We therefore affirm the decision of the district court with regard to Adonya Pacheco's status as a dependent and we reverse and vacate the district court's decision with regard to whether the Pachecos were entitled to survivors' economic loss benefits and the decision with regard to whether they were entitled to statutory interest.
Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and judgment vacated in part.
 The Pachecos' second issue, whether they are entitled to statutory interest, is moot because they did not complete the application and thus no payments are overdue.