THE SAINT PAUL PERSONAL INJURY ATTORNEY  
Minneapolis attorney Michael E. Douglas Attorney at Law
  Minneapolis Personal Injury Attorney
  St. Paul Workers Compensation Lawyer work comp attorney
 > About Me
   :: My Commitment
   :: Our Community
   
 > Legal Practice Areas
  twin cities comsumer lawPersonal Injury
   :: Traffic Accidents
   :: Medical Malpractice
   :: Social Security Disability
   :: Premises Liability
   :: Wrongful Death
   :: Dog Bite
   :: Back/Spinal/Neck Injuries
   :: Whiplash
   :: Defective Medical Devices
   :: Defective Drugs
  Minnesota Personal InjuryWorkers Compensation
  St. Paul personal injuryConsumer Law
   :: Debt Collection
   :: Repossessions
   :: Foreclosures
   :: Loan, Credit, Banking
   :: Arbitration Agreements
   :: Deception and Fraud
   :: Auto Fraud / Lemon Law
   :: Warranties
   :: Predatory Lending
   
 > Contact Us
   :: Contact Us
 

Law Offices of Michael E. Douglas
P.O. Box 251551
Woodbury, Minnesota 55125-6551
   

Saint Paul Lawyer
 
 mdouglas@injurylawstpaul.com

 

UNPUBLISHED CIVIL OPINIONS FROM THE MINNESOTA COURT OF APPEALS

Christopher Bretheim, et al.,
Appellants,

vs.

Monaco Coach Corporation, d/b/a Holiday Rambler,
a Delaware corporation qualified to transact business in
the State of Minnesota,
Respondent,

HWH Corporation, a Montana corporation
qualified to transact business in the State of Minnesota,
Defendant.


TOUSSAINT, Chief Judge
Appellants Christopher and Regina Bretheim purchased a motor home
made by respondent Monaco Coach Corporation and carrying a limited
warranty. They brought this action against respondent, claiming only
"violation of 15 U.S.C. Section 2301 et seq. (Magnuson-Moss Warranty
Act)" and seeking revocation of their acceptance of the motor home, a
full refund of the purchase price, damages for loss of use, and
litigation fees and costs. Respondent moved successfully for summary
judgment dismissing the action on the ground that appellants had no
claim under Magnuson-Moss. Because we see no error of law, we affirm.

= = = =

A06-545

Kimberly Scott Buell, petitioner,
Appellant,

vs.

Eugene Carl Buell,
Respondent.

RANDALL, Judge
On appeal in this dissolution matter, appellant-wife argues
that the district court did not lose subject-matter jurisdiction to
address her motion for amended findings when the hearing did not occur
within the 60-day period set out in Minn. R. Civ. P. 59.03. We conclude
Rule 59.03 is a procedural tool, and the district court did not lose
jurisdiction to hear appellant's motion. We reverse and remand.

= = = =

A06-350

Dorothy M. Krekelberg, et al.,
Respondents,

vs.

Lawrence F. Okrend, et al.,
Appellants.

KALITOWSKI, Judge
In this dispute over the construction of a shed in violation
of a neighborhood restrictive covenant, the district court granted
summary judgment and an injunction ordering appellants Lawrence F.
Okrend and Janice M. Watkins to remove the disputed shed. Appellants
argue that the district court erred by (1) finding that the character of
the neighborhood had not changed; (2) granting equitable relief to
respondents even though they had unclean hands; (3) finding that the
architectural committee was validly constituted; and (4) finding that
appropriate procedural protections were in place to protect appellants
from arbitrary enforcement. We affirm.

= = = =

A05-2407

Charles W. Caron,
Relator,

vs.

Multimedia Holdings Corp.,
Respondent,

Department of Employment and Economic Development,
Respondent.

WILLIS, Judge
Relator appeals from an unemployment-law judge's (ULJ)
determination that relator was discharged for employment misconduct and
is, therefore, ineligible to receive unemployment benefits. Because we
conclude that there was a reasonable basis for relator's belief that his
employer acted unlawfully by demanding that relator submit to a physical
examination, we reverse.

= = = =

A06-366

Becky A. Cole,
Relator,

vs.

Department of Employment & Economic Development,
Respondent.

SHUMAKER, Judge
Relator challenges a decision that she was overpaid
unemployment benefits, arguing that the unemployment law judge (ULJ) was
incorrect in the amount that was due and that she should not have been
penalized for fraud. Because substantial evidence in the record as a
whole supports the ULJ's determination on the amount of her
underreported earnings, we affirm on that issue. But we reverse the
ULJ's determination of fraud and the assessed penalty because the ULJ
did not follow the prescribed procedure for giving notice of intent to
consider an issue not raised by relator on appeal.

= = = =

A05-2283

Robert W. Nicholson, Jr. Trust, et al.,
Appellants,

vs.

Sawmill Golf Club, Inc., et al.,
Respondents.

SHUMAKER, Judge
In this action for damages and other relief relating to the
alleged breach of a golf-course lease, appellant trustee challenges
various findings and conclusions and the district court's award of
attorney fees. Because the court's findings of fact as stated are not
clearly erroneous, we affirm those findings. But because the court
failed to make findings as to certain claimed additional rent and the
basis for its award of attorney fees, we remand as to those issues for
findings.

= = = =

A05-2266

Robin Tuluie, et al.,
Respondents,

vs.

Randy J. Albertson, et al.,
Appellants.

SHUMAKER, Judge

On appeal from summary judgment granting an easement in
favor of respondents over appellants' land, appellants contend that the
district court erred in ruling that respondents are entitled to an
easement. By notice of review, respondents argue that the court erred
in limiting the size of the easement. There exist some genuine issues
of material fact for trial, and thus we affirm in part, reverse in part,
and remand.

= = = =

A06-1179

In the Matter of the Welfare of the Child of: S.L.P., Parent.



STONEBURNER, Judge

On appeal from a transfer of legal and physical custody of
appellant's child to the child's paternal grandmother, appellant argues
that the district court's findings are inadequate, the evidence was
insufficient to support the transfer to the child's paternal grandmother
rather than to the child's maternal uncle, and the child's best
interests would be served by transferring permanent custody to her
maternal uncle. Because the district court's findings are adequate, and
there is sufficient evidence in the record to support the district
court's conclusion that the child's best interests are served by
transferring custody to her paternal grandmother, we affirm.

= = = =

A06-220

Eischen Cabinet Company,
Appellant,

vs.

New Tradition Homes, Inc., et al.,
Defendants,

Robert Allen Juve, et al.,
Respondents.

DIETZEN, Judge

Appellant challenges the district court's order granting summary
judgment and dismissing its claims, arguing that genuine issues of
material fact exist regarding its breach-of-contract claim and
unjust-enrichment claims that preclude summary judgment. Because we
conclude that there are no genuine issues of material fact that preclude
summary judgment and the district court did not err in applying the
law, we affirm.

= = = =

A06-1134

In the Matter of the Civil Commitment of:
Ronald Edward Conner

ROSS, Judge
Ronald Conner challenges his indeterminate civil commitment as a
sexually dangerous person and a sexual psychopathic personality. He
argues that the state failed to establish by clear and convincing
evidence that he meets the statutory criteria for commitment because it
failed to show that he lacks adequate control over his behavior or
sexual impulses and that he is highly likely to engage in acts of
harmful sexual conduct. Because the record amply supports the district
court's exceptionally detailed and thoroughly analyzed initial and
secondary findings of fact that Conner meets the statutory criteria for
commitment, we affirm.

= = = =

A06-704
A06-705

In the Matter of the Welfare of the Children of:
C.M. and B.J.D., Parents

ROSS, Judge
Appellants C.M. and B.J.D. challenge the district court's order
terminating their parental rights. They argue that the district court
erred by relying on their oral stipulation as a basis for the
termination and by finding that termination rather than transferring
legal custody of the children was in the children's best interests. We
affirm.

= = = =

A06-480

In re the Marriage of:
Jenny L. Woods, petitioner,
Respondent,

vs.

Joseph D. Woods, III,
Appellant,

and

Dakota County, intervenor,
Respondent.

CRIPPEN, Judge
We infer from appellant's brief statement of contentions
that he claims abuse of district court discretion for failing to
reinstate his driver's license after an earlier suspension for
non-payment of child support. The district court made appropriate
findings against reinstatement, and we affirm.

= = = =

A06-185

Jon Wesley Nissen, petitioner,
Appellant,

vs.

Commissioner of Public Safety,
Respondent.

HUDSON, Judge
Appellant Jon Wesley Nissen challenges the district court's
order denying his petition for reinstatement of his driver's license.
Appellant also argues that the district court erred by permitting
cross-examination to exceed the scope of direct examination. Because
the district court's finding that appellant had consumed alcohol was not
clearly erroneous, and because the district court did not abuse its
discretion by permitting cross-examination into matters not directly
inquired about on direct examination, we affirm.

 

 
 
 

  What day were you injured?

  / /


  What caused your injuries?
Traffic/Bicycle Accident
Work-Related Injury
Wrongful Death
Dog Bite
Slip and Fall
Other:


  How have your injuries affected

  your life?

 


  What kinds of medical care
  professionals have you seen?

 


  What has your treatment cost?

 

  Is Insurance Involved?
My insurance may cover
        this.

Someone else's insurance
        may cover this.

I already filed a claim.
I rejected a settlement
        offer.

I accepted a settlement
        offer.

  Were there any witnesses?
Bystanders Witnessed This.
Police Responded and Filed
        a Police Report

Police Responded but Did
        Not File a Police Report


 
          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.