| THE SAINT PAUL PERSONAL INJURY ATTORNEY |
|
|
 |
 |
 |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
UNPUBLISHED CIVIL OPINIONS FROM THE MINNESOTA COURT OF APPEALSPatricia L. Rooney, petitioner,Appellant, vs. Michael T. Rooney, Respondent, and Christ's Household of Faith,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. |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 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. |
