| THE SAINT PAUL PERSONAL INJURY ATTORNEY |
|
|
 |
 |
 |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
UNPUBLISHED CIVIL OPINIONS FROM THE MINNESOTA COURT OF APPEALSChristopher Bretheim, et al.,Appellants, vs. Monaco Coach Corporation, d/b/a Holiday Rambler, a Delaware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. |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 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. |
