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UNPUBLISHED CIVIL OPINIONS FROM THE MINNESOTA COURT OF APPEALS

A06-1166


Jonathan 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.
 

 
 
 

  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.