| THE SAINT PAUL PERSONAL INJURY ATTORNEY |
|
|
 |
 |
 |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
UNPUBLISHED CIVIL OPINIONS FROM THE MINNESOTA COURT OF APPEALSRobert K. Pearson,Respondent, vs. All American Builders of Duluth, Inc., et al., Appellants. TOUSSAINT, Chief Judge In this dispute over commissions owed respondent-employee Robert K. Pearson from appellants All American Builders of Duluth, Inc. and All American Builders of Rice Lake, Inc. after he resigned, the district court awarded attorney fees under Minn. R. Civ. P. 11 to respondent for his motion to dismiss a frivolous counterclaim and granted partial summary judgment to respondent based on a concession by appellants' counsel. Appellants argue that granting summary judgment was erroneous because there were genuine issues of material fact and that the district court abused its discretion in awarding rule 11 attorney fees. Because appellants were not given proper notice of the motion for rule 11 attorney fees and the opportunity to withdraw or correct the counterclaim, we reverse the award of rule 11 attorney fees. Because the district court properly relied on the concession, we affirm summary judgment. = = = = A05-1323 North American Cleaning Services Co., Inc., Relator, vs. Department of Employment and Economic Development, Respondent. WRIGHT, Judge Relator-business challenges the decision of the senior unemployment review judge that a worker was relator's employee rather than an independent contractor. We affirm. = = = = A05-1343 Bart Montanari, Respondent, Lisa Herda Montanari, Plaintiff, vs. Terence Montpetit, Appellant, and Monties Resources, L.L.C., additional defendant to counterclaim, Respondent. PETERSON, Judge On appeal in this business dispute, appellant argues that (1) respondent-buyer defaulted under the contract by selling timber and land without consulting appellant; (2) the district court erred in concluding that contract notice provisions were ambiguous and finding that respondent-buyer was not in default under them; and (3) appellant was entitled to attorney fees under the contract. Respondents argue that this appeal is barred under doctrines of mootness and judicial estoppel. Based on our conclusions that buyer did not default under the contract by selling timber and land and that the district court properly construed the notice provisions, we affirm. = = = = A05-1395 Trisi Lee, Relator, vs. Dick & Rick's Auto Upholstery, Inc., Respondent, Commissioner of Employment and Economic Development, Respondent. WRIGHT, Judge Relator challenges the senior unemployment review judge's decision that she quit her employment without a good reason attributable to the employer and is, therefore, disqualified from receiving unemployment benefits. We affirm. = = = = A05-1435 Alex C. Eschweiler, Respondent, vs. Charles C. Eschweiler, Appellant. MINGE, Judge Appellant challenges the district court's (1) dissolution and winding up of his partnership; (2) determination of accord and satisfaction; and (3) limitation on the length of the trial. Although we conclude that respondent gave notice of dissociation from the partnership, the district court did not err in ordering a judicial dissolution and winding up or in finding accord and satisfaction. We further conclude that the district court's limits on the trial were not an abuse of discretion or a violation of appellant's right to procedural due process. We affirm. = = = = A05-1550 Alex M. Popel, Relator, vs. CommonBond Housing (Corp), and Department of Employment and Economic Development, Respondents. ROSS, Judge This case involves an apartment manager's separation from employment after he failed to remedy his employer's dissatisfaction with his performance. Relator Alex M. Popel challenges the decision of the senior unemployment review judge that Popel is disqualified from receiving unemployment benefits because he was discharged by respondent CommonBond Housing Corporation for employment misconduct. We affirm. = = = = A05-1573 Richard Paul Hokanson, Respondent, vs. 2001 Dodge SSE, and City of Bloomington, Appellant. LANSING, Judge In a judicial-forfeiture action, the district court determined that a seized vehicle was not subject to forfeiture because the owner neither knew nor should have known that his wife would drive the vehicle while she was impaired. Because the record supports the district court's determination on the owner's lack of actual or constructive knowledge of the unlawful use, we affirm. = = = = A05-1590 Jeffrey S. Iverson, Respondent, vs. Chicilo Homes, Inc., Appellant. LANSING, Judge In litigation involving statutory warranties on new-home construction, the district court found that the homeowner's complaint was filed within the statute of limitations, that the drain field for the septic system failed to comply with the building code, and that the building-code violation caused damages to the homeowner. The construction corporation appeals each determination. Because the record supports the district court's findings that the homeowner's complaint was timely and that building-code violations in the installation of the septic system's drain field resulted in damages to the homeowner, we affirm. = = = = A05-1643 Allen W. Peterson, et al., Appellants, vs. David M. Bergman, Respondent. TOUSSAINT, Chief Judge Respondent David M. Bergman owns an undivided one-half interest in certain land. Appellants Allen W. and Leslie Peterson, Anita L. and Stanley Dekowski, and Roberta J. and Haven S. Hill together own the other undivided half interest in that land. Appellants asked the district court to partition the land or to order it sold and to divide the resulting proceeds. Respondent opposed appellants' request, and the district court denied relief. Appellants argue that the district court misread Minn. Stat. ? 558.14 (2004) and associated case law. Because the district court's findings of fact are supported by the record and it did not otherwise misapply the law, we affirm. = = = = A05-1696 In re the Marriage of: Dee Henderson, f/k/a Denise Marie Dittrich, petitioner, Respondent, vs. Gregory Duane Dittrich, Appellant. TOUSSAINT, Chief Judge The district court ruled that, after respondent-mother and custodial parent Dee Henderson, f/k/a Denise Marie Dittrich, was incarcerated, the parties' child would equally split his time between the home of mother and her current husband and the home of appellant-father Gregory Duane Dittrich. On appeal, father argues (a) the district court improperly awarded joint physical custody of the child to mother's husband and father, despite mother's husband not being a party to the parents' custody proceeding; (b) mother's incarceration should have entitled father to custody of the child; and (c) the record shows that the joint-custody factors were not considered here. Mother notices review of the award to father of sole legal custody and certain statements by the district court about child support. We affirm in part and reverse in part. = = = = A05-1719 Dean Croat Construction, Inc., Relator, vs. Stearns County Board of Commissioners, Respondent. MINGE, Judge Relator brings a certiorari appeal from the Stearns County Board of Commissioners' refusal to approve his preliminary plat. Because relator had obtained a lot-size variance from the Board of Adjustment, the Board of Commissioners exceeded its authority when it denied the plat because of lot-size concerns. Because the record before us does not support other bases for denial, we reverse and remand to the Board for approval of relator's preliminary plat. = = = = A05-1720 Mark A. Krmpotich, Relator, vs. Ultimate Electronics, Inc., Respondent, Department of Employment and Economic Development, Respondent. SHUMAKER, Judge Relator challenges his disqualification from unemployment benefits, arguing that he quit his job for good reason attributable to his employer. Because the evidence supports the unemployment-law judge's determination, we affirm. = = = = A05-1722 In re the Marriage of: Kim Marie Bunce, petitioner, Respondent, vs. John Russell Bunce, Appellant. TOUSSAINT, Chief Judge Appellant John Russell Bunce challenges the district court's orders following remand of this child-support dispute. Because we see no abuse of discretion in the orders relating to child support and sequestered property and the record supports the award of attorney fees, we affirm. = = = = A05-1790 In re the Marriage of: Barbara Jean Johnson, petitioner, Appellant, vs. James Martin Johnson, Respondent. STONEBURNER, Judge Appellant challenges the valuation and division of property and denial of temporary maintenance in this dissolution action. Respondent challenges the denial of his motion for conduct-based attorney fees. We affirm in part, reverse in part, and remand. = = = = A05-1791 In re the Matter of: Elijah Jesse Miller, petitioner, Respondent, vs. Tiffany Leah Berens, Appellant. WILLIS, Judge Appellant mother argues that the district court abused its discretion by awarding appellant and respondent father joint physical custody of their daughter. But because the district court considered all of the applicable statutory factors in great detail and the record supports its findings, we determine that the district court did not abuse its discretion and affirm its award of joint physical custody. We further deny respondent's motion for attorney fees. = = = = A05-1799 In re the Estate of Geraldine Moeller ROSS, Judge Appellants argue that the district court erred by denying their claim against decedent's estate for unjust enrichment. Because we conclude that appellants did not establish the elements of their claim, we affirm. = = = = A05-1962 Michele T. Barker, n/k/a Michele T. Obermeier, Respondent, v. Gunnar B. Barker, n/k/a Gunnar Barker Soderlind, Appellant. ROSS, Judge In this appeal, we consider a child-support magistrate's modification of appellant father's child-support obligation. He contests the district court's adoption of a child-support magistrate's order in which the magistrate modified child support based on the finding that the father's income had increased substantially. Because we conclude that the district court abused its discretion in its imputation of income to the appellant father as a basis for the child-support amount, we affirm in part, reverse in part, and remand for further proceedings. = = = = A05-2000 Mary Jo K. Gerring, Appellant, vs. Quality Car Wash Operations, Ltd., et al., Respondents, Steven M. Gerring, Respondent, Virginia Gerring, Respondent. TOUSSAINT, Chief Judge Appellant Mary Jo K. Gerring challenges the district court's grant of summary judgment, claiming she has standing to bring an action under the Minnesota Business Corporations Acts because she has not been divested of her 19 shares of stock in Gerring Properties. We affirm. = = = = A05-2133 In re the Matter of: Ramsey County, Plaintiff, Marcia Hagen, Appellant, vs. Jose Galeano, Respondent. HUDSON, Judge In this child-support-modification dispute, appellant mother argues that the district court abused its discretion by applying the law-of-the-case doctrine and denying the county's motion to modify respondent father's child-support obligation. Because the district court correctly precluded relitigation of the support question, we affirm. = = = = A05-2249 Brenda M. Walker, Relator, vs. Associated Bank, Respondent, Department of Employment and Economic Development, Respondent. TOUSSAINT, Chief Judge Relator Brenda M. Walker challenges the decision of the unemployment-law judge (ULJ) that she is disqualified from receiving benefits because she quit her employment without a good reason caused by the employer. Because the ULJ's findings, inferences, conclusion, and decision are not affected by an error of law and are supported by substantial evidence, we affirm. = = = = A05-2390 Karen L. Humenik, Relator, Vs. Mission Farms Nursing Home, Inc., Respondent, Department of Employment and Economic Development, Respondent. RANDALL, Judge Relator Karen Humenik challenges the decision of the unemployment-law judge (ULJ) that she is disqualified from receiving benefits because she quit her employment without a good reason caused by the employer. We affirm. |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| By visiting this page or clicking the "submit" button above, you agree that you have read and accept this "disclaimer". |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Copyright ©
Michael E. Douglas, Attorney at Law, Saint Paul MN. All Rights
Reserved. Minnesota Lawyer representing Personal Injury, Car / Auto Accident, Workers Compensation, Medical Malpractice, Social Security Disability claims. Dedicated to Injured Workers, Victims of Negligence, Car Accidents, Victims of Fraud, and those in need of legal assistance. |
