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UNPUBLISHED CIVIL OPINIONS FROM THE MINNESOTA COURT OF APPEALS

Patricia L. Rooney, petitioner,
Appellant,

vs.

Michael T. Rooney,
Respondent,

and

Christ's Household of Faith,
third-party respondent,
Respondent,

and

Ramsey County,
Intervenor.

KALITOWSKI, Judge
Appellant Patricia L. Rooney challenges the district court's
order, which, following a remand from this court (1) determined that
Michael T. Rooney had no direct obligation to pay support; (2) modified
child support retroactively and prospectively; (3) vacated maintenance
retroactively and prospectively; and (4) terminated income withholding,
and reinstated Michael Rooney's driving privileges. We affirm in part
as modified, reverse in part, and remand.

= = = =

A05-1918
A05-2167

In re the Marriage of: Anastasia M. Farman,
petitioner,
Appellant,

vs.

David C. Farman,
Respondent.

PETERSON, Judge
On appeal in this family-law matter, pro se appellant-mother
argues that (1) the district court was biased; (2) the record does not
support the district court's findings on parenting time; (3) the
district court erred in determining medical and child-care expense
reimbursement; (4) the district court erred in declining to impute
income to father and in determining the amount of child support; and (5)
the district court erred in declining to award her attorney fees. We
affirm.

= = = =

A06-703

Cary W. Ebert,
Relator,

vs.

Department of Employment and Economic Development,
Respondent.

SHUMAKER, Judge
Relator challenges the senior unemployment review judge's
determination that he was overpaid unemployment benefits, arguing that
the department issued its determination after the statutory deadline.
Alternatively, relator argues that a statutory offset should apply to
any repayment. Because the department issued its determination of
overpayment within the statutory deadline, and the issue of a statutory
offset is not properly before this court, we affirm.

= = = =

A06-289

Dennis Walz, et al.,
Respondents,

vs.

Thomas J. Peplinski,
Appellant,

John Does I through III,
Defendants.

SHUMAKER, Judge
In this appeal from a judgment awarding respondents specific
performance of an agreement for the sale of land, appellant argues that
the district court erred as a matter of law in its interpretation of the
agreement and ascertainment of the parties' intent. Because the court
did not err, we affirm.

= = = =

A06-850
A06-1194


Minch Family Limited Partnership through its
general Partner, A. R. Minch and A. R. Minch, individually,
Appellants,

vs.

Buffalo-Red River Watershed District, et al.,
Respondents.

LBROOKS, Judge
On appeal from the district court's judgment of dismissal on
summary judgment and award of costs and disbursements to respondents
Buffalo-Red River Watershed District (BRRWD) and its officers and
managers Roger Ellefson, Curtis Nelson, Gerald L. VanAmburg, John E.
Hanson, and E. Robert Olson, appellants Minch Family Limited Partnership
and A. R. Minch contend that the district court erred by determining
that the BRRWD's enforcement powers are discretionary and that the
watershed-district managers' actions do not constitute intentional
infliction of emotional distress and that the district court abused its
discretion by awarding respondents their costs and disbursements. We
affirm as modified.

= = = =

A06-611


Jane Doe and John Doe, as parents and
natural guardians of J. A. H., a minor,
Appellants,

vs.

Independent School District No. 152,
Respondent,

City of Moorhead,
Respondent,

Lutheran Social Service of Minnesota, et al.,
Defendants.


HALBROOKS, Judge
Appellants John and Jane Doe, parents of a minor victim of
criminal sexual conduct, challenge the district court's grant of partial
summary judgment in favor of respondents Independent School District No.
152 and the City of Moorhead. Appellants argue that the district court
erred in determining that (1) the school district did not have a duty to
both protect J.A.H. from Robert Hersrud and to prevent Hersrud from
entering school grounds and the Sports Center and (2) the city did not
have a duty to protect J.A.H. while she was in the Sports Center.
Appellants also argue that (1) the Sports Center is not a recreational
facility for purposes of recreational immunity under Minn. Stat. ?
466.03, subd. 6e (2006), and (2) statutory immunity does not apply to
the city under Minn. Stat. ? 466.03, subd. 6 (2006). We affirm.

= = = =

A06-938

Hennepin County on behalf of Dawn M. Hunt,
Respondent,

vs.

Michael S. Johnson,
Appellant.


STONEBURNER, Judge

Appellant-father challenges the award of physical custody of
the parties' child to respondent-mother, arguing that the district court
failed to make findings on relevant evidence and made findings
unsupported by the evidence regarding the best-interests factors. In
the alternative, appellant argues that he was awarded inadequate
parenting time. Appellant also challenges the district court's award of
need-based attorney fees to respondent. We affirm.

= = = =

A06-540

Glen H. Schwartz,
Relator,

vs.

Department of Employment and Economic Development,
Respondent.

ONEBURNER, Judge

Relator's challenge to the determination that he was overpaid
unemployment benefits after he reached a settlement on his workers'
compensation claim was dismissed as untimely. In this certiorari
appeal, relator addresses only the merits of, rather than the procedural
bar to, his claim. Because the unemployment law judge (ULJ) properly
dismissed relator's appeal for lack of jurisdiction under Minn. Stat. ?
268.18, subd. 1(b) (Supp. 2005), we affirm.

= = = =

A06-297

City of East Bethel,
Petitioner Below,

vs.

Bethel Properties, Inc.,
Appellant,
The First National Bank of Waconia, et al.,
Respondents Below,
Leland J. Frankman,
Respondent,
Richard H. Speeter,
Respondent.

STONEBURNER, Judge

Appellant challenges a judgment enforcing respondents' lien
for attorney fees filed against appellant's recovery in this eminent
domain proceeding. Appellant asserts that the district court erred by
failing to conduct an evidentiary hearing on the reasonableness of the
fees. We affirm.

= = = =

A06-1

In re the Marriage of: Beverly Ellen Moen, petitioner,
Respondent,

vs.

Dennis Dale Moen,
Appellant.

MINGE, Judge

On appeal in this spousal-maintenance dispute,
appellant-husband Dennis Moen argues (a) the district court misread the
parties' dissolution judgment to require husband to provide medical
insurance for respondent-wife Beverly Moen until she dies; (b) the
district court misread the parties' dissolution judgment to reserve
rather than waive maintenance; and (c) the record does not support the
amount of maintenance awarded to wife. We affirm.

= = = =

A06-367

Brian K. Foltz,
Relator,

vs.

Honeywell International, Inc.,
Respondent,

Department of Employment and Economic Development,
Respondent.

WRIGHT, Judge

Relator challenges the unemployment law judge's decision
affirming on reconsideration that relator quit his employment without a
good reason caused by the employer. Relator argues that the
unemployment law judge's telephone hearing was unfair because relator
did not have an adequate opportunity to present his case, and he raises
other issues for the first time in this certiorari appeal. We affirm.

= = = =

A06-271

Susan Wahl Storbeck,
Relator,

vs.

ACS Enterprise Solutions, Inc.,
Respondent,

Department of Employment and Economic Development,
Respondent.

WRIGHT, Judge

Relator challenges the decision by the unemployment law judge
affirming his earlier decision that relator was discharged for
employment misconduct and, therefore, is disqualified from receiving
unemployment benefits. We affirm.

= = = =

A06-619

Ralph B. Lowis,
Appellant,

vs.

Park Nicollet Clinic, et al.,
Respondents.

DIETZEN, Judge

Appellant challenges a district court order denying his
posttrial motions for new trial or, alternatively, for judgment as a
matter of law, arguing that the district court erred in (1) denying his
request to introduce portions of medical textbooks to impeach
respondents' medical expert; (2) admitting opinion testimony of
respondents' other medical expert; and (3) denying his motion for
judgment as a matter of law because defendants offered no qualified
testimony on the issue of causation. Because we conclude that the
district court properly applied the law and did not abuse its
discretion, we affirm.

= = = =

A06-1181

In re the Marriage of:

Patricia Anne Moss, petitioner,
Appellant,

vs.

Abdalla Shebani Abdussayed,
Respondent.

ROSS, Judge

On appeal from a postdissolution judgment addressing custody,
parenting time, income, dependent medical insurance, and allocation of
marital debt, Patricia Moss argues that the district court abused its
discretion by giving Abdalla Abdussayed sole physical custody of their
daughter, failing to establish a parenting-time schedule, miscalculating
Abdussayed's income, requiring Moss to obtain dependent medical
insurance, and allocating marital debt to Moss. Because the record
demonstrates that the district court should have implemented a
parenting-time plan but did not otherwise abuse its discretion, we
affirm in part, reverse in part, and remand.

= = = =

A06-379

In re the Marriage of:
Charlotte Kay Sailors, petitioner,
Respondent,

vs.

James Thomas Sailors,
Appellant.

ROSS, Judge
On appeal in this spousal-maintenance modification dispute,
appellant husband James Sailors argues that the district court abused
its discretion by refusing to modify his stipulated permanent
spousal-maintenance obligation despite the changes in his health and in
the parties' financial circumstances. By notice of review, respondent
wife Charlotte Sailors argues that the district court erred by
permitting husband to reduce the amount of a life-insurance policy used
as security for his maintenance obligation. Because of the multiple
material discrepancies between the income and expense figures in the
parties' affidavits and those found by the district court without clear
explanation of the differences or their bases, we are unable to provide
meaningful review. We reverse in part and remand with instructions to
the district court to clarify the bases for its determination of the
parties' income and expense amounts to support its determination that
there has not been a substantial change in the parties' financial
positions that requires modifying the spousal-maintenance obligation.
Because we find that the district court did not abuse its discretion by
allowing husband to reduce his life-insurance policy, we affirm that
part of the district court's order.

= = = =

A06-57


Aaron William Roberts,
Relator,

vs.

Lanier Worldwide, Inc.,
Respondent,

Department of Employment and Economic Development,
Respondent.

ROSS, Judge

Aaron Roberts quit his sales position with Lanier Worldwide,
Inc., and appeals an unemployment law judge's determination that he is
disqualified from receiving unemployment benefits because he quit
without a good reason caused by his employer. He asserts that the record
does not support the unemployment law judge's findings, that Lanier's
employees lied at the hearing, and that he was prejudiced when Lanier
was temporarily disconnected from the telephonic hearing and his witness
was unable to testify. Because the record does not establish
circumstances that would compel a reasonable person to quit, because we
defer to the unemployment law judge's credibility determinations, and
because no evidence supports Roberts's speculative claim of misconduct,
we affirm.

= = = =

A06-101

Peysenske Lake Association,
Relator,

vs.

Minnesota Department of
Natural Resources, et al.,
Respondents,

County of Hubbard, et al.,
Respondents.

CRIPPEN, Judge
Relator Peysenske Lake Association challenges the actions of
respondent Department of Natural Resources (DNR), arguing that the DNR's
decision to modify the replacement culvert's elevation was procedurally
and substantively flawed. Relator argues that the DNR did not follow
the proper permitting procedure when it verbally approved a last-minute
change to the replacement culvert's elevation without holding a hearing,
and that the decision to modify the replacement culvert's elevation was
unsupported by the evidence, arbitrary and capricious, and improperly
based on private interests. Because the DNR's permitting procedure
involved no identifiable legal irregularity, and because the record
shows a substantial basis for the decision, we affirm.

= = = =

A06-346


Vatsal Munshi,
Respondent,

vs.

J-I-T Services, Inc.,
Appellant.

HUSPENI, Judge
On appeal from the district court's denial of its motion for
judgment notwithstanding the verdict (JNOV), appellant argues that
respondent's quantum meruit claim seeking compensation for the value of
services he performed for his former employer fails as a matter of law
because (1) respondent has an adequate remedy at law and obtained a
default judgment against his former employer, and (2) the wages he seeks
to recover are the subject of an express contract. Because respondent
has not met his heavy burden of showing that he has exhausted his
efforts and is unable to collect the default judgment, he has an
adequate remedy at law and his claim fails as a matter of law. We
reverse.


 

 
 
 

  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.