| THE SAINT PAUL PERSONAL INJURY ATTORNEY |
|
|
 |
 |
 |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
UNPUBLISHED CIVIL OPINIONS FROM THE MINNESOTA COURT OF APPEALSLinda J. Johnson,Relator, vs. J.C. Penney Corporation Inc., Respondent, Department of Employment and Economic Development, Respondent. KALITOWSKI, Judge Relator Linda J. Johnson challenges the decision of the unemployment law judge affirming Johnson's disqualification from receiving unemployment benefits. We affirm in part and remand. = = = = A06-381 In re the Marriage of: John David Walker, petitioner, Appellant, vs. Barbara Jean Walker, Respondent. PETERSON, Judge In this appeal from a marital-dissolution judgment and from an order amending findings and denying appellant-husband's motion for a new trial, husband argues that (1) the record does not support the district court's determination that funds that respondent-wife provided to make the down payment on the parties' homestead were not a gift from wife to husband; (2) the district court abused its discretion when it subtracted from his share of the marital interest in the homestead equity the amount needed to pay the remaining balance of the second-mortgage loan; and (3) the district court abused its discretion when it awarded him only ,000 in additional marital property, rather than awarding him spousal maintenance. We affirm. = = = = A05-2525 In re the Marriage of: Wayne Charles Sing, petitioner, Respondent, vs. Peggy Sue Sing, Appellant. PETERSON, Judge On appeal in this dissolution dispute, appellant-wife argues that the district court erred in (1) concluding that respondent-husband had a nonmarital interest in property that he bought before the marriage; (2) valuing the property and awarding it to husband; and (3) declining to award wife maintenance and conduct-based attorney fees. We affirm. = = = = A06-1494 A06-1495 In the Matter of the Welfare of the Child of: J.E.B. and R.D.B., Jr., Parents. WILLIS, Judge In these consolidated termination-of-parental-rights appeals, mother argues that (1) the petition to terminate her parental rights was untimely because it was filed after the permanency deadline, or, in the alternative, mother and the child's placement in full-family foster care suspended the running of the permanency deadline; (2) the district court erred by applying a presumption of palpable unfitness because the transfer of custody of two of mother's older children was voluntary and because the county failed to file the petition within the statutory time limitation after those transfers; (3) the record does not otherwise show mother to be unfit; (4) the district court overemphasized father's history of sexual abuse when addressing termination of mother's parental rights; and (5) the record does not show it to be in the child's best interests to terminate mother's parental rights. Father argues that (1) because father was complying with the relevant portions of his case plan, he was not a palpably unfit parent; and (2) clear and convincing evidence does not support the district court's determination that conditions leading to the child's out-of-home placement had not been corrected. We affirm. = = = = A06-652 M. Edward Nicholson, Respondent, vs. University of Minnesota Federal Credit Union, defendant and third party plaintiff, Appellant, vs. Paul E. McQuaid, Third Party Defendant. WILLIS, Judge On appeal from summary judgment in this commercial-lease dispute, appellant argues that the district court erred as a matter of law when it declined to order rescission. Appellant claims that rescission is appropriate because (1) the lease was executed as a result of a mutual mistake, (2) the lease was executed as a result of a unilateral mistake, (3) the purpose of the lease was frustrated, and (4) respondent materially breached the lease. We affirm. = = = = A06-1621 In the Matter of the Civil Commitment of: Darrin Scott Rick. SHUMAKER, Judge Appellant challenges the district court's order committing him indeterminately to the Minnesota Sex Offender Program as a sexually dangerous person, arguing that the evidence is insufficient to find him to be a sexually dangerous person and that he proved a less-restrictive treatment alternative is available. Because the evidence is sufficient to support the sexually dangerous person finding, and because appellant failed to prove a less-restrictive treatment alternative is available, we affirm. = = = = A06-621 Travelers Commercial Casualty Company, Respondent, vs. Daniel Morales, et al., Defendants, Railroad Salvage & Restoration, Inc., Appellant. STONEBURNER, Judge In this declaratory-judgment action, appellant-insured challenges summary judgment granted to respondent-insurer, arguing that the district court erred in determining that, as a matter of law, exclusions in a workers' compensation policy precluded coverage for appellant's employee, who was allegedly injured in Minnesota. We affirm. = = = = A06-140 Oneka Lake Development Co., LLC, Appellant, vs. City of Hugo, Respondent. STONEBURNER, Judge Appellant argues that the district court erred in holding that respondent city complied with Minn. Stat. ? 15.99 (2006) when it denied appellant's application for an amendment to the city's comprehensive plan. Appellant argues that respondent's procedure was inadequate to effectively deny the application within the statutory 60-day period and that the application should be approved by operation of law. We affirm. = = = = A06-1331 In the Matter of the Welfare of the Children of: T.R.K. and J.C.K., Parents. MINGE, Judge Appellant challenges the district court's termination of her parental rights, claiming that the district court's findings were clearly erroneous. Because we conclude that the district court's finding on at least one statutory basis for termination is supported by clear and convincing evidence and is not clearly erroneous, we affirm. = = = = A06-1052 In the Matter of the Welfare of the Child of K.C.W and D.W., Parents ROSS, Judge On appeal from an order terminating his parental rights to his son, D.W. argues that the record does not support the district court's findings that he failed to abide by the duties of the parent-child relationship, he failed to correct the conditions leading to his son's out-of-home placement, and his son had been neglected and in foster care. He further argues that the county failed to make reasonable efforts toward reunification and unilaterally terminated its services to D.W. Because clear and convincing evidence supports the district court's findings that three statutory grounds justify terminating D.W.'s parental rights, and because the department made reasonable efforts toward reunification, 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. |
