| THE SAINT PAUL PERSONAL INJURY ATTORNEY |
|
|
 |
 |
 |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
UNPUBLISHED CIVIL OPINIONS FROM THE MINNESOTA COURT OF APPEALSCynthia Khan,Relator, vs. ACR Homes, Inc., Respondent, DIETZEN, Judge By writ of certiorari, relator challenges the decision of the unemployment law judge (ULJ) that relator had been discharged for misconduct and, therefore, was disqualified from receiving unemployment benefits, arguing that the determination was not supported by the record. Because the ULJ's determination that relator was discharged for misconduct is supported by substantial evidence in the record as a whole, we affirm. A05-2440 Jill S. Hansen, et al., Appellants, vs. Robert J. Hansen, Respondent. MINGE, Judge Appellants challenges the district court's findings that (1) appellant Bryan Hansen unduly influenced the execution of a 1993 amendment to the Hansen Family Trust; (2) Bryan unduly influenced his father's 2000 grant of power of attorney to Bryan; and (3) Bryan breached his fiduciary duty to the Hansen Family Trust. Because the district court's findings are not clearly erroneous, we affirm. A05-2571 In the Matter of the Welfare of: J.A., Child. LANSING, Judge In this appeal from disposition following a delinquency adjudication, JA challenges the adequacy of the facts and the district court's findings to support an out-of-home placement. Because the factual record and the district court's findings sufficiently support the disposition, we affirm. A05-2574 In re the Marriage of: Richard A. Lisser, petitioner, Appellant, vs. Donna J. Lisser, Respondent. PETERSON, Judge In this appeal from an order modifying spousal maintenance, appellant-husband argues that the district court erred (1) in determining respondent-wife's income; (2) in determining husband's monthly expenses; (3) by not making the modification effective retroactively to the date of the motion; and (4) by not awarding him attorney fees. We affirm. A06-52 Kimberly J. Gura, Relator, vs. Paul Stafford Electric, Inc., Respondent, Department of Employment and Economic Development, Respondent. HALBROOKS, Judge Relator argues that the unemployment law judge (ULJ) improperly determined that she quit her employment without good reason caused by her employer, alleging that she had good reason to terminate her employment because (1) she worked in an adverse environment for more than a year; (2) the adverse environment was created and facilitated by her employer, who was informed about the situation but did not take appropriate actions to rectify it; (3) there was miscommunication at the hearing about questions posed to her by the ULJ; and (4) she never received information as to a question regarding her initial denial of benefits by the Department of Employment and Economic Development (DEED). We reverse. A06-95 Innsbruck Village Association, Appellant, vs. Stock Roofing, Inc., Respondent, Transcontinental Insurance Company, an Illinois corporation, et al., Respondents. KLAPHAKE, Judge Appellant Innsbruck Village Association entered into a Miller-Shugart settlement with respondent Stock Roofing, Inc. (Stock Roofing), which was insured by respondents Transcontinental Insurance Company, Continental Casualty Company, and American Casualty Company (respondents). Appellant challenges the district court's denial of its request for leave to serve a supplemental garnishment summons and complaint on respondents. Because we conclude that Stock Roofing violated its duty of cooperation by entering into a Miller-Shugart settlement when respondents had not fully denied coverage, causing the settlement to be unenforceable, we affirm. A06-105 Sarah Bruch, Respondent, vs. Wendy's FourCrown, Inc., Appellant. HALBROOKS, Judge Appellant challenges the district court's determination that the handwritten settlement agreement between the parties is enforceable and that respondent did not breach a material term of the agreement when she reported the settlement proceeds to the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) as taxable income. Appellant also argues that the district court abused its discretion when it ordered appellant to pay respondent's attorney fees as consequential damages of appellant's breach. Because we conclude that the settlement agreement was enforceable and that respondent did not breach the agreement, we affirm in part. With respect to the attorney-fees issue, we conclude that the award of attorney fees as consequential damages under Minn. Stat. ? 555.08 (2004) was an abuse of discretion, and, therefore, we reverse in part. But because the motion for an award of attorney fees was also based on Minn. Stat. ? 549.211 (2004), we remand to the district court to make findings, if it deems it appropriate, as a basis for an award of attorney fees pursuant to the statute. A06-189 Ricki Y. Schultz, Relator, vs. Bartley Sales Company, Inc., Respondent, Department of Employment and Economic Development, Respondent. WRIGHT, Judge Relator challenges the unemployment law judge's determination that relator is disqualified from receiving unemployment benefits because she quit without a good reason caused by the employer. We affirm. A06-204 City of Olivia, Relator, vs. Renville County Board of Commissioners, Respondent. LANSING, Judge The Renville County Board of Commissioners denied a petition to remove part of the City of Olivia from land determined to be benefited by the Renville County Ditch No. 66 Improvement. On certiorari appeal, the city argues that the county board's denial cannot be sustained because the city is no longer benefited by the drainage system and because removing the city from the system would not prejudice the property owners and property remaining within the system. Because the county board acted within its administrative authority and did not err as a matter of law by determining that the diversion of flood waters away from the city constitutes a benefit to the city, we affirm. A06-205 Jose H. Tori, Appellant, vs. University of Minnesota, Respondent. WILLIS, Judge Appellant sued respondent university for alleged violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C. ?? 12101-213 (2000); the Rehabilitation Act, 29 U.S.C. ? 794 (2000); and the Minnesota Human Rights Act, Minn. Stat. ?? 363A.01-.40 (2004); claiming that respondent denied his requests for a reasonable accommodation of his disabilities and dismissed him because of his disabilities or in retaliation for his requests for a reasonable accommodation. Appellant challenges the district court's grant of summary judgment to respondent. Because we conclude that there are no genuine issues of material fact precluding summary judgment and that the district court correctly applied the law, we affirm. A06-207 Scott Johnson, Appellant, vs. Kraus-Anderson Construction Company, Respondent. PETERSON, Judge In this appeal from a judgment for respondent-contractor in a dispute about roofing work on a building that appellant owns, appellant argues that the district court (1) made findings that are not supported by the record; (2) erred when it determined that appellant was not an intended beneficiary of a contract between respondent and the previous owner of the building; (3) erred when it held that appellant's claim was barred by the two-year statute of limitations in Minn. Stat. ? 541.051, subd. 1(a) (2004); (4) misapplied Minn. Stat. ? 327A.03(a) (2004) to bar appellant's warranty claim; and (5) erred in ruling that the building was not a residential building for purposes of chapter 327A. We affirm. A06-355 St. Louis Park Post No. 5632, Veterans of Foreign Wars of the United States, Incorporated, et al., Plaintiffs, Clear Channel Outdoor, Inc., a Delaware corporation, Appellant, ASK Property Management, Inc., et al., Plaintiffs, vs. City of St. Louis Park, Respondent. WRIGHT, Judge In this appeal from the district court's entry of summary judgment in favor of respondent-city on appellant's challenge to respondent's grant of a conditional use permit requiring that appellant's billboard be removed, appellant argues that respondent (1) misinterpreted and misapplied its ordinance; (2) acted unreasonably, arbitrarily, and capriciously by neglecting to issue proper findings supporting its decision; and (3) violated appellant's constitutional rights. We affirm. A06-406 Cindy Elofson, Respondent, vs. Chisago County, et al., Appellants. LANSING, Judge The district court denied Chisago County's summary judgment motion to dismiss, on official-immunity grounds, a former employee's gender-discrimination claim under the Minnesota Human Rights Act. Because the record supports the district court's determination that the immunity claim presents genuine issues of material fact, we affirm the denial of summary judgment. A06-449 Daniel M. Hendrickson, petitioner, Appellant, vs. Daniel Ferrise, Warden, Respondent. KLAPHAKE, Judge Appellant Daniel M. Hendrickson, an inmate at the Minnesota Correctional Facility-Stillwater, challenges an order denying his petition for writ of habeas corpus. He claims that the punishment he received for sending a letter to another inmate violated his due process and First Amendment rights. He further claims that the prison hearing officer improperly applied a "some evidence" standard at his disciplinary hearing. Because appellant failed to establish a prima facie constitutional violation and because the hearing officer did not erroneously apply a "some evidence" standard, we affirm. A06-549 Janita A. Larson, Relator, vs. Semcac, Respondent, RANDALL, Judge Relator challenges the decision that her request for reconsideration of the denial of unemployment benefits was untimely. We affirm. A06-758 In re the Marriage of: Kenneth Robert Smigelsky, petitioner, Respondent, vs. Wendy Sue Smigelsky, Appellant. STONEBURNER, Judge Appellant wife challenges the property division in this dissolution matter, asserting that the district court erred in (1) determining that an investment account and an automobile were marital property; (2) failing to consider a ,000 loan from wife's parents as marital debt; (3) concluding that a credit-card debt incurred by respondent husband after the parties' separation was a marital debt; and (4) determining husband's net income for purposes of calculating child support. We reverse the district court's determinations on the marital character of the investment account, car, and credit-card debt, and the award of an equitable offset for husband's labor against the loan from wife's parents. Because the findings are inadequate for meaningful review of the marital or non-marital character of that loan, husband's credit-card debt, and calculation of husband's net income for child-support, we remand for additional findings on those issues. |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 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. |
