| THE SAINT PAUL PERSONAL INJURY ATTORNEY |
|
|
 |
 |
 |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
UNPUBLISHED CIVIL OPINIONS FROM THE MINNESOTA COURT OF APPEALSA06-1275Giles Properties, Inc., Respondent, vs. Donald Kukacka, et al., Appellants. RANDALL, Judge On appeal from the district court's grant of specific performance in this real-estate dispute, appellants argue that the district court's decision is a result of its failure to apply the supreme court's holding in Hilton v. Nelsen, 283 N.W.2d 877 (Minn. 1979). Because the totality of the circumstances supports specific performance, the district court did not abuse its discretion. We affirm. = = = = A06-948 Anne Elizabeth Dailey, petitioner, Respondent, vs. Tony Christopher Chermak, Appellant. KALITOWSKI, Judge Appellant Tony Christopher Chermak challenges the district court's decisions that respondent Anne Elizabeth Dailey (1) did not defraud the court in her request to move their minor child out of state; and (2) was entitled to an award of attorney fees. We affirm. = = = = A06-699 Mary Axelson, Relator, vs. Kelly Services Inc., Respondent, Department of Employment and Economic Development, Respondent. PETERSON, Judge In this certiorari appeal from a decision of an unemployment-law judge (ULJ) that she is ineligible to receive unemployment benefits because she avoided an offer of suitable employment without good cause, relator argues that the employer did not make an offer of suitable employment and that the ULJ erred by refusing to hold an additional evidentiary hearing to permit relator to submit evidence that the job was not suitable because it paid less than half the local market rate for relator's customary occupation. We affirm. = = = = A06-1060 Mahdi Zain, Appellant, vs. PolarFab, Respondent. SHUMAKER, Judge In an appeal from a summary judgment dismissing his whistleblower and discrimination claims, Mahdi Zain argues that he submitted sufficient evidence to survive summary judgment that PolarFab, his employer, took adverse action against him either through constructive discharge or by denying him employment opportunities. Because Zain failed to show the existence of a genuine issue of material fact as to whether an adverse employment action was ever taken against him, and because such adverse action is an essential element of all of his claims, we affirm the district court's grant of summary judgment dismissing this action. = = = = A06-750 Ali Dunham, et al., Appellants, vs. Darin Opperman, Respondent. HALBROOKS, Judge Appellants challenge four separate orders issued by the district court, arguing that the district court (1) erred when it dismissed their claim for tortious interference with contract, (2) abused its discretion when it denied their motion to compel, (3) abused its discretion when it dismissed their case with prejudice as a sanction for discovery violations and inappropriate conduct, and (4) erred when it denied their motion to disqualify. Because we conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion when it denied appellants' motion to compel and did not err when it dismissed appellants' claim for tortious interference with contract and denied their motion to disqualify, we affirm in part. But because we conclude that the district court abused its discretion when it dismissed appellants' claim with prejudice, we reverse in part and remand. = = = = A06-1224 In re the Estate of: John G. O'Neil, Decedent. DIETZEN, Judge Appellant challenges the district court's judgment, which denied her objection to the inventory and final account of the estate, arguing that the district court erred in allowing payment of the expenses of administration from the homestead and awarding respondents attorney fees. Because homestead assets are statutorily exempt, we reverse. = = = = A06-334 City of St. Paul, petitioner, Respondent, vs. Mohammed Shahidullah, Appellant. DIETZEN, Judge In this condemnation proceeding, appellant challenges the judgment awarding him ,000, arguing that the district court erred in finding that appellant was properly served by publication and denying appellant's Batson challenge to the city's peremptory strike of a potential juror, and appellant alleges misconduct by the city during the trial. Because the district court properly applied the law and did not abuse its discretion, we affirm. = = = = A06-1133 In re the Marriage of: Shane C. Perry, joint petitioner, Respondent, vs. Jane Hall Perry, n/k/a Jane Hall-Dayle, joint petitioner, Appellant. WORKE, Judge On appeal in this child-support-modification dispute, appellant argues that (1) the district court should not have imputed income to her when it did not find, and the record does not show, that she was voluntarily underemployed; (2) the record does not support basing a support obligation on the income from the sale of her properties; and (3) the district court incorrectly applied the Hortis/Valento formula based on its own figures and should have based its support calculation on appellant's actual net-monthly income. We affirm. = = = = A06-591 In re the Marriage of: Karen Marie Bettermann, petitioner, Appellant, vs. Randy Lee Bettermann, Respondent. ROSS, Judge On appeal from a marital-dissolution judgment, Karen Bettermann argues that the district court understated Randy Bettermann's income and abused its discretion by denying her request for spousal maintenance and by awarding Randy Bettermann the entire value of the business he operates. By notice of review, Randy Bettermann challenges the district court's decision to amend its division of a mortgage-escrow refund and to deny his request for attorney fees. Because the district court acted within its discretion in determining Randy Bettermann's income, denying spousal maintenance, dividing marital property, and denying attorney fees, we affirm. = = = = A06-1322 Sean M. Ahlborn, Respondent, vs. Christine M. Roban, Appellant. CRIPPEN, Judge Appellant Christine Roban challenges the district court's conclusion that the parties were not jointly liable for the balance of an outstanding car loan-leaving her responsible to repay respondent Sean Ahlborn for the entirety of his cost of payments on the loan. Because the documentary evidence unambiguously indicates that the parties were joint debtors, we reverse. = = == A06-950 Original Log Homes of Minnesota, Appellant, vs. Merrill R. Anderson Trust, et al., Respondents. CRIPPEN, Judge In this real estate development dispute, appellant Original Log Homes of Minnesota challenges the district court's dismissal of the complaint for failure to state a claim, arguing that the court should have applied a substantial compliance test for determining the existence of statutory standing and that the court could not dismiss on appellant's statement of the claim after considering matters beyond the pleadings. 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. |
