| THE SAINT PAUL PERSONAL INJURY ATTORNEY |
|
|
 |
 |
 |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
UNPUBLISHED CIVIL OPINIONS FROM THE MINNESOTA COURT OF APPEALSA06-1166Jonathan A. Minks, Appellant, vs. Nicole Cherry (owner/operator) d/b/a Cherry's Minnehaha Tavern, Inc., a/k/a The Cherry Pit, Respondent. RANDALL, Judge This appeal results from a summary judgment granted against appellant's personal injury action under Minnesota's innkeeper liability law. Appellant argues that respondent was liable for appellant's injuries under the innkeeper liability law because (1) notice of viciousness can be imputed to a group of people even if the injuring individual cannot be identified; and (2) the injury to appellant was foreseeable. Appellant also argues that the bar should be liable based on a theory of negligent security. We affirm on all issues. = = = = A06-519 In re the Marriage of: Sandra Dawn Schaefer, petitioner, Respondent, vs. Michael Paul Schaefer, Appellant. PETERSON, Judge On appeal in this dissolution matter, appellant-husband challenges the district court's determination of maintenance, arguing that the court failed to consider the liquid nature of respondent-wife's property settlement and that notwithstanding wife's disability, given the short duration of the marriage, the court erred in awarding permanent maintenance. Husband also argues that the district court failed to adequately address the parties' nonmarital interests in certain assets and erred in awarding attorney fees to wife. We affirm in part, reverse in part, and remand. = = = = A06-884 Lynne Lenzmeier, Relator, vs. APR Capital Mortgage Corp., Respondent, Department of Employment and Economic Development, Respondent. WILLIS, Judge Relator appeals by writ of certiorari the determination of the unemployment-law judge's affirmance of his initial determination that relator was discharged for employment misconduct and is therefore disqualified from receiving unemployment benefits. She argues that her refusal to train her supervisor regarding an office procedure was reasonable because, as an employee compensated solely by commission, she would not receive compensation for the time spent training her supervisor. We affirm. = = = = A06-916 In the Matter of the Conservatorship of: Kirsten Elizabeth Lasley, a Minor. HALBROOKS, Judge Appellant Douglas R. Whitney, former conservator, argues that the district court abused its discretion in its determinations (1) that certain conservatorship disbursements were inappropriate, requiring reimbursement by the conservator; (2) that his claim for legal services was unreasonable because a portion of the charges were for work that was non-legal in nature and/or duplicative of services rendered by another conservatorship attorney; and (3) by reserving the issue of allowance of tax payments for later determination. Because we conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion, we affirm. = = = = A06-908 In re the Marriage of: Sherri Gifford Mazzitelli, Petitioner Below, vs. John Patrick Mazzitelli, Appellant, vs. Stephen Dennis, Respondent. HALBROOKS, Judge Appellant John Patrick Mazzitelli challenges the district court's order requiring him to pay 75% of the expert-witness fees charged by respondent Stephen Dennis to perform a valuation of the Mazzitellis' marital and nonmarital property during the dissolution of the Mazzitellis' marriage. Mazzitelli argues that the district court abused its discretion by failing to recuse itself from the posttrial fee dispute between Dennis and Mazzitelli and erred by (1) denying Mazzitelli's motion for summary judgment, (2) using its contempt powers to enforce the monetary judgments, and (3) ordering Mazzitelli to pay conduct-based attorney fees to Dennis. Because we conclude that the district court properly applied the law and did not abuse its discretion, we affirm. = = = = A06-945 Kelly Anne Rosier, Relator, vs. Commissioner of Human Services, Respondent. STONEBURNER, Judge Relator challenges respondent commissioner's refusal to set aside relator's ten-year disqualification from working in direct contact with persons served by programs licensed by the Minnesota Department of Human Services (DHS) based on her June 10, 2005 conviction of gross misdemeanor offering a forged check. We affirm and grant respondent's motion to strike portions of relator's reply brief that are not part of the record. = = = = A06-694 In re the Marriage of: Mary Patricia Henderson, petitioner, Respondent, vs. Michael John Henderson, Appellant. STONEBURNER, Judge Appellant husband challenges the property division and maintenance award to respondent wife in this dissolution action. Because the district court's findings are inadequate to support the division of marital assets and because the evidence does not support the district court's determination of wife's income for purposes of the maintenance award, we reverse the division of marital assets, the calculation of wife's income, and the maintenance award and remand for additional findings consistent with this opinion. = = = = A06-687 Richard Heil, Appellant, vs. Minnesota Racing Commission, et al., Respondents. STONEBURNER, Judge Appellant challenges the dismissal of his pro se action against respondents as a sanction for failing to respond to the district court's order compelling discovery. Because the district court did not abuse its discretion by dismissing appellant's action, we affirm. = = = = A06-642 Stephanie A. Boldt, Respondent, vs. Margaret Burns, Appellant, and Professional Administration Corporation, et al., nominal defendants, Appellants, and Stephanie A. Boldt, Respondent, vs. Mahoney & Hagberg, et al., Appellants. STONEBURNER, Judge Appellants challenge the district court's orders requiring production of information and documents that were sealed as a part of the settlement of previous lawsuits. Respondent asserts that the issue is moot because the documents have already been disclosed in another pending lawsuit. As to the documents disclosed, we conclude that the issue is moot, but as to any information or documents covered by the district court's order and not yet disclosed, we affirm. = = = = #A06-557 Todd Michael Bauerly, petitioner, Appellant, vs. Suzanne Mary Bauerly, Respondent. STONEBURNER, Judge In this dissolution action, appellant-husband challenges the district court's award of sole physical custody of the minor children to respondent-wife; calculation of his net monthly income for purposes of setting child support; failure to continue the trial for completion of psychological evaluations; denial of his request for credit for alleged overpayment of child support; and adoption of wife's proposed findings of fact, conclusions of law, and order for judgment. Because the record reflects that the district court independently decided the issues, the district court's findings, though minimal, support the award of custody, husband's claim for overpayment of support was not established on the record, and the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying a continuance for psychological evaluations, we affirm on those issues. Because the district court did not calculate husband's net monthly income based on information that was current at the time of trial, we reverse and remand on that issue. = = = = A06-462 In the Matter of the Findings of Neglect by Nelson Opare, Appellant, vs. Minnesota Department of Health, Respondent. STONEBURNER, Judge Appellant challenges the district court order affirming the decision of respondent Department of Health that he is disqualified from providing healthcare services based on a finding that he neglected four vulnerable adults. Appellant argues that respondent's decision was (1) arbitrary and capricious; (2) based on an error of law; (3) not supported by substantial evidence in the record; and (4) made on unlawful, prejudicial procedure. Because we conclude that appellant was not subjected to unlawful, prejudicial procedure; the commissioner did not misapply the law; and there is substantial evidence in the record to support the decision, we affirm. = = = = A06-990 Pa K. Vang, Relator, vs. The Work Connection, Inc., Respondent, Department of Employment and Economic Development, Respondent. MINGE, Judge Relator challenges the unemployment law judge's decision to dismiss her request for reconsideration as untimely. Because relator filed the request 31 days after the mailing of the unemployment law judge's decision, we affirm. = = = = A06-1213 Todd Hoffman, Appellant, vs. Daniel J. Van Hook, d/b/a Van Hook Homes, Respondent, Palmer-Soderberg, Inc., Respondent, Andersen Corporation, Respondent, Simon Hershberger, Respondent. DIETZEN, Judge Appellant challenges the district court's orders and resulting judgments dismissing his claims against respondents arising out of the construction of a new home, arguing that genuine issues of material fact preclude summary judgment, and that the district court erred in concluding that (1) the claims were barred by the statute of limitations as set forth in Minn. Stat. ? 541.051, and (2) that respondent Van Hook's bankruptcy precluded appellant's claims. We affirm. = = = = A06-653 In re: Estate of Edward J. Reichenberger, a/k/a Edward Reichenberger, Deceased. DIETZEN, Judge Appellant challenges the district court order and resulting judgment which, inter alia, admitted a June 2001 will of testator to probate, but voided a competing will executed four months later due to undue influence upon the testator, and awarded attorney fees against appellant and a non-party. Appellant argues that the district court failed to apply the proper burden of proof to the evidence and that the findings and conclusions of the district court were not supported by the evidence or law. We affirm in part and reverse in part. = = = = A06-290 In re the Marriage of: Debora Kay Schnitker, n/k/a Debora K. Peterson, petitioner, Respondent, vs. Kenneth Robert Schnitker, Appellant. DIETZEN, Judge Appellant challenges the district court's judgment and decree of divorce arguing that it failed to properly apply the terms of the parties' antenuptial agreement and that its division of the property was inequitable. Because the district court properly applied the law and did not abuse its discretion, we affirm. = = = = A06-1081 Weekes Forest Products, Inc., Respondent, vs. Windsor Homes, Inc., a Wisconsin corporation, Defendant, Ronald Wald, Appellant. WORKE, Judge On appeal from a judgment in favor of respondent following a court trial in a lawsuit to collect on guaranties, appellant argues that the district court erred by (1) construing the written guaranty contrary to its unambiguous terms; (2) finding that appellant did not intend that the personal guaranty expire on a particular date; and (3) concluding that the personal guaranty was signed on a particular date rather than on the date written in the agreement. We affirm. = = = = A06-985 Lucille A. Hennings, Relator, vs. Team Industries Bagley-Audubon, Inc., Respondent, Department of Employment and Economic Development, Respondent. WORKE, Judge On certiorari appeal, relator challenges the unemployment-law judge's decision that she did not quit her employment for a good reason caused by the employer and was disqualified from receiving benefits, ruling that although her workplace was not enjoyable, she had not been treated so unreasonably that the average employee would have quit rather than continue working under the circumstances. We affirm. = = = = A06-1173 Robyn Joan Erickson, petitioner, Respondent, vs. Jeffrey Dean Erickson, Appellant. COLLINS, Judge On appeal in this spousal-maintenance dispute, appellant-husband argues that his maintenance obligation is excessive because the district court (a) overstated respondent-wife's reasonable monthly expenses; (b) understated respondent's employment-related ability to support herself; (c) understated respondent's ability to use her assets and associated income to support herself; (d) overstated respondent's expected tax burden; and (e) apparently used respondent's maintenance award as a way to supplement her stipulated property award. Appellant also argues that the record does not support the district court's award to respondent of permanent maintenance. Because the district court did not in any respect abuse its discretion in setting appellant's spousal maintenance obligation, 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. |
