| THE SAINT PAUL PERSONAL INJURY ATTORNEY |
|
|
 |
 |
 |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
UNPUBLISHED CIVIL OPINIONS FROM THE MINNESOTA COURT OF APPEALSA06-1302Veronica Hicks, Relator, vs. Dakota County Community Development Agency, Respondent. STONEBURNER, Judge Relator seeks review of termination of her Section 8 rental assistance, arguing that (1) the record does not support a determination that she failed to abide by program requirements; (2) the hearing officer failed to make adequate findings regarding credibility determinations; and (3) the hearing officer acted in an arbitrary and capricious manner. Because the hearing officer failed to make adequate findings and failed to consider mitigating circumstances, we reverse and remand. = = = = A06-1371 In the Matter of the Alexandria Lake Area Sanitary District NPDES/SDS Permit No. MN0040738, Reissuance for the Expanded Discharge of Treated Wastewater, Douglas County , Alexandria , Minnesota . WORKE , Judge On appeal from the reissuance of the Alexandria Lake Area Sanitary District’s wastewater-treatment-facility discharge permit, relator Minnesota Center for Environmental Advocacy argues that the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency erred by failing to calculate and impose water quality-based effluent limits for phosphorus as required by federal law. Because the reissued permit violates a federal regulation promulgated under the Clean Water Act, we reverse and remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. = = = = A06-1391 Robin Hillan Pihlman, n/k/a Robin Hillan Schuyler, petitioner, Respondent, vs. Dewey Rehnholdt Pihlman, Appellant. HALBROOKS , Judge Appellant challenges the district court’s award of conduct-based attorney fees to respondent, arguing that he did not unnecessarily add to the length and cost of the proceedings by requesting an evidentiary hearing on his motion for change of custody. Appellant also argues that the district court improperly denied his motion to amend the findings to delete the portion of the dissolution judgment providing respondent a lien against a cabin awarded to appellant. Finally, appellant contends that the district court erred in determining his net monthly income is ,033, alleging that the district court failed to consider his ordinary-and-necessary business expenses in its calculation. We affirm. = = = = A06-1462 Bruce William Luther, Appellant, Lynette C. Luther, Plaintiff, vs. American National Bank of Minnesota , Respondent. PARKER , Judge On appeal from summary judgment in this collection dispute, pro se appellant debtor argues that the district court judge should have recused himself, and the district court judge abused his discretion by failing to grant relief from the summary judgment against him. We affirm. = = = = A06-1554 A06-2048 AHR Construction, Inc., Respondent, vs. Joseph O. Dixon, Appellant, and Joseph O. Dixon, Appellant, vs. AHR Construction, Inc., Respondent. STONEBURNER, Judge In these consolidated appeals, pro se appellant challenges (1) the district court’s issuance of a writ of recovery to respondent for property that respondent bought at a foreclosure sale and (2) the district court’s grant of summary judgment dismissing appellant’s conversion action against respondent. Because respondent was entitled to possession of the property and there are no genuine issues of material fact in the conversion action, we affirm both decisions. = = = = A06-1772 White Bear Township Development, LLC, Appellant, vs. Scott A. Stoddard, et al., Respondents. ROSS , Judge This appeal concerns the viability of a real-estate purchase agreement that the sellers cancelled after the buyer failed to close within the time set for closing. We must decide whether the district court abused its discretion by denying the buyer’s motion either to compel the sellers to close on the property and to accept the buyer’s proposed new terms or to enjoin the sellers from cancelling the original purchase agreement after the buyer breached. Because we find that the buyer’s proposed new terms would materially alter the terms of the parties’ purchase agreement and the buyer offers no legal basis to force the seller to accept or to preclude the seller from cancelling the purchase agreement, we hold that the district court did not abuse its discretion by denying the buyer’s requested injunctive relief, and we affirm. = = = = A06-1788 In re the Marriage of: Lawrence Wayne Schneider, petitioner, Respondent, vs. Jill Lynn Schneider, Respondent Below, County of Anoka, intervenor, Appellant. PETERSON , Judge In this child-support-related dispute involving the suspension of respondent-father’s driver’s license, appellant-county argues that the record does not support the fine imposed on the county for erroneously suspending father’s driver’s license. We reverse. = = = = A06-1971 Stockwalk Group, Inc. and Miller, Johnson, Steichen & Kinnard, Inc., Appellants, vs. Frank Charles Taylor III, Respondent, Taylor Law Office, PLC, Respondent, Amy Kaldor Taylor, Respondent, Kaldor Law Firm, PLLC, Respondent. MINGE, Judge Appellants challenge the district court’s denial of their motion to temporarily enjoin respondents-attorneys from representing an adverse party in an arbitration matter. After briefing, respondents filed a motion to dismiss the appeal as moot. We grant the motion and dismiss the appeal. = = = = A06-1982 Margaret MacRae, trustee for the next of kin of Roderick MacRae, Appellant, vs. Group Health Plan, Inc., et al., Respondents. STONEBURNER, Judge Appellant challenges the district court’s grant of summary judgment to respondents, dismissing appellant’s wrongful-death action as barred by Minn. Stat. § 541.076 (2006), the statute of limitations for medical-malpractice actions. Based on existing caselaw, we conclude that the district court did not err in holding that appellant’s cause of action accrued on the date of misdiagnosis and is therefore barred by the statute of limitations, and we affirm. = = = = A06-2194 In re the Marriage of: Jonathan H. Ginsburg, petitioner, Appellant, vs. Julie K. Gordon, Respondent. DIETZEN, Judge In this postdissolution proceeding, appellant challenges the district court order denying his motion to reduce or terminate spousal maintenance, arguing that the court abused its discretion in not finding a substantial change in circumstances that rendered the original award unfair and unreasonable. Because the district court properly applied the law and did not abuse its discretion, we affirm. = = = = A06-2309 Donald W. Steinkraus, Respondent, vs. Cook County Board of Adjustment, Appellant. STONEBURNER, Judge Appellant, a county board of adjustment, challenges the district court’s order reversing appellant’s denial of respondent’s request for a variance and granting the variance. We reverse. = = = = A07-427 In the Matter of the Welfare of the Child of: S.T. Parent. DIETZEN , Judge Appellant challenges the district court orders terminating her parental rights and denying her motion for a new trial, arguing that the order terminating her parental rights is not supported by clear-and-convincing evidence and that the court violated her right to substantive due process of law. Because the district court properly applied the law and did not abuse its discretion, we affirm. = = = = A07-532 In the Matter of the Welfare of the Child of S. L. L., Parent MINGE, Judge Appellant challenges the district court’s decision to terminate her parental rights, arguing that the district court failed to conduct a reasoned analysis of the best interests of the child. We affirm. = = = = A 07-582 In the Matter of the Welfare of the Child of: B.W. and L.W., Parents. PARKER , Judge In December 2004, seven-year-old J.W. was removed from the home of his adoptive parents, appellants B.W. and L.W., after L.W. struck him with a belt. B.W.’s and L.W.’s parental rights were subsequently terminated in February 2007. On appeal from termination of their parental rights, B.W. and L.W. argue that (1) termination was clearly erroneous due to the lack of an out-of-home placement plan and (2) the record does not contain clear and convincing evidence to support termination under the two statutory bases found by the district court. Because the evidence clearly and convincingly supports the district court’s findings, we affirm. = = = = A07-612 In the Matter of the Welfare of the children of: B.W. and L.W., Legal Custodians. STONEBURNER, Judge St. Louis County petitioned to terminate appellants’ legal and physical custody of four children, who are enrolled members of the White Earth Tribe, after the children were found to be in need of protection or services of the court due to appellants’ acts. Six days before trial was to begin, the tribe moved to transfer the proceedings to tribal court. The district court expedited a hearing on the motion and granted the transfer, concluding that the tribal court is the proper forum to hear this matter. Appellants challenge the transfer order, arguing that the district court erred in granting the motion because good cause existed to deny the transfer. Because a district court is not required to deny transfer to a tribal court even when good cause to deny a transfer may exist, and because the district court in this case did not abuse its discretion by granting the transfer, we affirm. = = = = A07-912 In the Matter of the Civil Commitment of: Nicholas Harold Luhmann. STONEBURNER, Judge Appellant challenges the sufficiency of the evidence to support indeterminate commitment as a sexually dangerous person and a sexual psychopathic personality. Because the evidence is sufficient, we affirm. [1] [1] Appellant also initially asserted on appeal that he proved that a less-restrictive alternative than commitment to the Minnesota Sex Offender Program was available, but in his brief, he concedes that the existence of a less-restrictive alternative was not proved. |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 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. |
