| THE SAINT PAUL PERSONAL INJURY ATTORNEY |
|
|
 |
 |
 |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
UNPUBLISHED CIVIL OPINIONS FROM THE MINNESOTA COURT OF APPEALSJerold O. Nelson,Appellant, vs. Douglas J. Nill, Respondent. KLAPHAKE, Judge Appellant, attorney Jerold O. Nelson, challenges the district court's grant of summary judgment in his action to enforce the terms of a written agreement he entered into with respondent, attorney Douglas J. Nill. Because their agreement is ambiguous and reasonably susceptible to more than one interpretation, we conclude that genuine issues of material fact remain unresolved, and the district court erred by granting summary judgment. We therefore reverse and remand. = = = = A06-340 In re the Marriage of: Julie Marie Miller, petitioner, Appellant, vs. Gary Lee Miller, Respondent. WILLIS, Judge In this appeal from a dissolution judgment, appellant wife challenges her spousal-maintenance award and argues also that the district court abused its discretion when it allowed respondent husband to testify regarding the present value of husband's insurance agency and when it adopted that value in its findings of fact. Both parties challenge the district court's treatment of husband's insurance agency in its property division. We affirm. = = = = A06-1567 In the Matter of the Civil Commitment of: Benjamin James Alverson. HALBROOKS, Judge Appellant challenges the district court's judgment committing him as a sexually dangerous person (SDP) and a sexual psychopathic personality (SPP), arguing that (1) the evidence is insufficient to support a finding that he is an SDP or an SPP; (2) the district court is precluded from finding clear and convincing evidence to support a conclusion that appellant is either an SDP or an SPP when less than a year earlier the district court dismissed a civil-commitment petition related to appellant and when appellant has allegedly committed no new sex offenses since that time; and (3) the SDP and SPP statutes authorizing civil commitment violate the Double Jeopardy Clause of the federal Constitution. Because clear and convincing evidence supports appellant's commitment as an SDP and an SPP and because the applicable statutes are not unconstitutional, we affirm. = = = = A06-645 Rachel Goetzmann, et al., Plaintiffs, vs. Domestic Development, Inc., et al., Defendants, and Domestic Development, Inc., defendant and third-party plaintiff, Appellant, vs. Bill Ratzlaff, individually and d/b/a Bill's Stucco Service, third party defendant, Respondent, Scott King, individually and d/b/a L & S Construction, third party defendant, Respondent, C. H. Carpenter Lumber, third party defendant, Respondent, Westurn Cedar Supply & Roofing, third party defendant, Respondent, Schield Brothers, Inc. d/b/a Vetter Windows and Doors, Third Party Defendant. LBROOKS, Judge Appellant challenges the district court's grant of summary judgment to respondents on the grounds that the district court erred in its determination that appellant's settlement agreement with the Goetzmanns is a Pierringer release that eliminated appellant's third-party claims against respondents and that appellant's claims are time-barred by operation of Minn. Stat. ? 541.051 (2002). Because we conclude that the district court did not err, we affirm. = = = = A06-614 Robert Klover, Relator, vs. Independent School District #834, Respondent, Department of Employment and Economic Development, Respondent. MINGE, Judge Relator challenges the unemployment law judge's (ULJ) determination that he was disqualified from receiving unemployment benefits because he was discharged for employment misconduct. Because we conclude that the ULJ's finding that relator's misrepresentations on his employment applications were the reason for his discharge, and the finding that those misrepresentations constitute employment misconduct are supported by substantial evidence, we affirm. = = = = A05-2573 In re the Marriage of: Patricia JoAnn Renard, petitioner, Respondent, vs. Ronald Allen Renard, Appellant. MINGE, Judge Appellant-husband argues that the district court abused its discretion: (1) by ordering him to pay permanent spousal maintenance; (2) in calculating his income and expenses and determining child support; (3) in allocating marital debt; (4) in making its custody determination; and (5) by denying his motion for a new trial. Because the record does not establish that the district court abused its discretion in awarding permanent spousal maintenance, calculating appellant's income, making its custody determination, or denying appellant's motion for a new trial, we affirm on those issues. But because the district court failed to consider a federal benefit for a child and did not properly determine excess income in determining the amount of spousal maintenance and making the child support award, and erred in the allocation of a portion of the parties' marital debt, we reverse and remand those portions of the decision. = = = = A06-461 Dale Nathan, Appellant, vs. Town Centre Self Storage, LLC, Respondent. HUDSON, Judge This is an appeal from a judgment of dismissal. Appellant sued respondent, from which he rented a storage cubicle, after the respondent charged him late fees, contending that the late fees were illegal penalties and inappropriate liquidated damages. After respondent waived all late fees and gave notice that the rental agreement would be terminated, the district court declared the suit moot and dismissed it. Appellant argues that (1) he suffered damages as a result of the contract termination; (2) factual issues remain as to whether respondent's termination of its contract was retaliatory; and (3) the district court made a number of procedural errors. We affirm. = = = = A06-754 Raymond T. He, Relator, vs. Cypress Semiconductor, (Minnesota) Inc., Respondent, Department of Employment and Economic Development, Respondent. WRIGHT, Judge Relator challenges the decision by the unemployment law judge affirming on reconsideration his earlier decision that relator was discharged for employment misconduct and, therefore, is disqualified from receiving unemployment benefits. We affirm. = = = = A06-1596 In the Matter of the Welfare of the Children of: L.D. and J.C., Parents. DIETZEN, Judge Appellant guardian ad litem (GAL) challenges the district court order dismissing a petition that J.C. and J.D. were children in need of protection or services, arguing that the district court (1) failed to consider the statutory criteria alleged under Minn. Stat. ? 260C.007, subd. 6; (2) erred by not concluding that the children were in need of protection or services; and (3) clearly erred by finding that the parent had substantially complied with the case plan. Because the court properly applied the law and did not abuse its discretion, we affirm. = = = = A06-1304 In the Matter of the Welfare of the Children of: N.M., Parent. WORKE, Judge On appeal from a Children in Need of Protection or Services (CHIPS) determination, appellant argues that (1) neither the findings nor the record supports the adjudication that the children are in need of protection or services because the children's environment is dangerous to the children; (2) neither the findings nor the record supports the district court's dispositional orders; and (3) the district court abused its discretion by adopting the county's proposed findings verbatim. We affirm. = = = = A06-1609 A06-1635 In the Matter of the Welfare of the Children of: C.R.P. and Y.P., Parents. CRIPPEN, Judge In these consolidated appeals of each parent from the district court's termination of their parental rights, the parents argue that the record does not support the court's findings that they are palpably unfit to parent, that reasonable efforts failed to correct harmful conditions, and that termination of their rights is in the children's best interests. Having found evidence of record that is sufficient to support the district court's findings, we affirm. = = = = A06-106 Deeanne M. Carlson, Appellant, vs. Richard F. Riemenschneider, DDS, Respondent. CRIPPEN, Judge Deeanne Carlson appeals from the district court's denial of a new trial in an action for dental malpractice. Appellant disputes the sufficiency of the evidence to support the jury's finding that respondent Richard F. Riemenschneider, DDS, was not negligent in the treatment he provided to her, and she contends that the district court improperly excluded evidence from earlier Minnesota Board of Dentistry proceedings and from prior malpractice lawsuits. Appellant also disputes the jury's zero-damages determination and the district court's refusal to allow a punitive-damages claim. Because the record permits the jury's verdict and because the district court did not abuse its broad discretion in excluding evidence, we affirm. Other contentions of appellant are also without merit. = = = = A06-1180 In re the Marriage of: Lisa Kegler Shea, petitioner, Respondent, vs. Richard Arthur Shea, Appellant. HUSPENI, Judge In seeking review of several decisions of the district court in a dissolution judgment, appellant challenges (a) the spousal maintenance award, claiming that the record does not support the duration or amount of the award or its designation as permanent; (b) the valuation of the parties' property because the district court selected multiple valuation dates without adequate explanation and awarded respondent a share of the increase in the value of certain assets occurring after the parties' separation; (c) the requirement that appellant pay all of the children's uninsured medical expenses, and the award to respondent of certain tax deductions and exemptions; (d) the failure of the district court to grant appellant sole legal and physical custody of the children; and (e) the parenting-time schedule established by the district court. Because evidence in the record supports each of the contested decisions of the district court, and because there was no abuse of discretion in those decisions, 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. |
