| MINNEAPOLIS PERSONAL INJURY ATTORNEY |
|
|
 |
 |
 |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
UNPUBLISHED CIVIL OPINIONS FROM THE MINNESOTA COURT OF APPEALSA06-1734Vladimir A. Barkhudarov, Appellant, Nina Gorokhova, Plaintiff, vs. Sara Rensenbrink, et al.. Respondents. LANSING, Judge This appeal involves a dispute over the calculation of federal housing-assistance benefits. Vladimir Barkhudarov and his wife Nina Gorokhova administratively appealed their benefit calculation but did not seek a writ of certiorari on the adverse determination. Instead, they sued in conciliation court for the amounts they claimed were improperly excluded. The conciliation court dismissed the claim for lack of jurisdiction, and Barkhudarov removed the case to district court. The district court dismissed on jurisdictional and immunity grounds, and Barkhudarov appeals. Because the district court properly dismissed the case on jurisdictional grounds, we affirm. = = = = A06-1774 Nevar D. Bennett, Relator, vs. Marcus Northstar, Inc., Respondent, Department of Employment and Economic Development, Respondent. RANDALL, Judge Relator challenges the ULJ's decision disqualifying him from receiving unemployment benefits due to employment misconduct. Relator claims that the determination is not supported by substantial evidence and relies on his testimony that he did not abandon his work, but was instead granted permission to take the day off. We affirm. = = = = A06-1290 Karl Meyer, Relator, vs. Dakota County Community Development Agency, Respondent. RANDALL, Judge On appeal in this Section 8 housing dispute, relator argues that his voucher was inappropriately cancelled for violent criminal activity because (a) he was not convicted of a crime; (b) the housing authority failed to identify a crime that he had committed; (c) the record does not support the determination that he participated in violent criminal activity; and (d) the housing authority failed to consider all relevant circumstances in deciding to terminate his voucher. We conclude the hearing officer's finding of violent criminal activity is not supported by substantial evidence in the record. We reverse. = = = = A07-320 In re the Marriage of: Wendell Rhett Bonner, petitioner, Respondent, vs. Stephanie K. Bonner, Appellant. KLAPHAKE, Judge Appellant Stephanie K. Bonner and respondent Wendell Rhett Bonner were divorced in December 2006, after 13 years of marriage. On appeal directly from the judgment, appellant challenges the district court's award of sole physical custody of the parties' two young daughters to respondent, its parenting time schedule, and its denial of spousal maintenance. Respondent, who appears pro se following the withdrawal of his attorney, has filed a notice of review challenging the district court's decision to require him to make a property equalization payment to appellant. Because the district court's findings are not clearly erroneous and adequately support its custody decision, because the district court's parenting time schedule is reasonable and workable, and because the district court did not abuse its discretion in ordering respondent to make an equalization payment to appellant, we affirm on those issues. But because the district court's findings fail to demonstrate that the court properly considered the parties' marital standard of living when it awarded appellant no spousal maintenance, we reverse and remand on that issue. = = = = A07-150 Nick Egge, et al., Appellants, vs. Depositors Insurance Company, an Iowa Insurance Company licensed to do business in the State of Minnesota, Respondent. KLAPHAKE, Judge Appellants Nick Egge and Chanda Egge challenge the district court's dismissal of their action against respondent Depositors Insurance Company, an Iowa insurer. Respondent insured appellants' home, which was destroyed by two fires on May 24, 2004. On March 2, 2006, respondent denied appellants' claim for failure to cooperate. On May 17, 2006, appellants attempted substitute service on respondent pursuant to Minn. Stat. ? 45.028 (2004); respondent moved to dismiss based on improper service and for a change of venue from Meeker County to Crow Wing County, the site of the fires. On June 22, 2006, before respondent's motion could be heard, appellants served respondent personally. Again, respondent challenged the service, arguing that it now was beyond the contractual limitations period of two years. Ultimately, the Meeker County District Court ruled that the substitute service was improper, and on a motion under Minn. R. Civ. P. 12.02, the Crow Wing County District Court held that appellants' claim was time-barred as beyond the contractual limitations period. Because appellants' attempted substitute service was ineffective, we affirm the order of the Meeker County District Court. But because appellant Chanda Egge's chapter 7 bankruptcy action may have tolled the contractual limitations period, we reverse the order of the Crow Wing County District Court and remand this matter for further proceedings. = = = = A06-1723 Betty Heard, Appellant, Diane McKinney, Petitioner Below, vs. Hank M. Stewart, Respondent, Anne M. Stewart, Respondent. PETERSON, Judge In this appeal from an order dismissing pro se appellant's petition for a harassment restraining order, appellant argues that the district court erred as a matter of law when it did not consider the evidence in the light most favorable to appellant and, therefore, erred in denying appellant's petition. Because the district court is not required to consider the evidence in the light most favorable to appellant and we give due regard to the district court's opportunity to judge the credibility of witnesses, we affirm. = = = = A06-1952 John K. Hulett, Relator, vs. Thomas Kinkade Stores, Inc. (2004), Respondent, Department of Employment and Economic Development, Respondent. WILLIS, Judge Relator appeals from his disqualification from unemployment benefits, arguing that the unemployment-law judge was biased and unfair and that he quit for good reason caused by his employer. We affirm. = = = = A07-801 James P. Kerkes, Appellant, vs. Cal R. Ludeman, Commissioner of Human Services, Respondent. MINGE, Judge Appellant challenges a decision by the judicial appeal panel dismissing appellant's petition for transfer and discharge from his indeterminate commitment as mentally ill and dangerous. We affirm. = = = = A07-300 Stacy L. Otto, Appellant, vs. Robert Christianson, et al., Defendants, Jamie Gowdy, as Special Administrator for the Estate of Terry Pearson, Respondent. MINGE, Judge Appellant challenges the district court's award of summary judgment on his personal-injury claim against respondent estate. On appeal, respondent moves to strike portions of the appendix to appellant's brief. We affirm and deny in part and grant in part the motion to strike. = = = = A06-1790 Mary K. Bucher, Relator, vs. Minnesota Lung Center Ltd., Respondent, Department of Employment and Economic Development, Respondent. WRIGHT, Judge Relator challenges the unemployment law judge's decision on reconsideration that relator was discharged for misconduct and, therefore, is disqualified from receiving unemployment benefits. We affirm. = = = = A06-1733 Robin Dale Abel, petitioner, Respondent, vs. Kathi Jo Abel, Appellant. WRIGHT, Judge In this appeal from the district court's denial of her motion to compel respondent-husband to sell the marital home as provided in the dissolution judgment and decree, appellant-wife argues that the district court erred by failing to enforce unambiguous provisions in the judgment and decree and by modifying the provisions of a final property division after the time for appeal had run. Appellant also challenges the denial of her motion for attorney fees. We affirm. = = = = A06-2112 Anthony L. Garcia, Relator, vs. Supervalu Inc., Respondent, Department of Employment and Economic Development, Respondent. WORKE, Judge Relator challenges the decision by the unemployment-law judge that he quit without good reason attributable to the employer and was disqualified from receiving unemployment benefits, arguing that (1) he was laid off from prior employment and took a position with Supervalu even though it required him to work evenings, which had an adverse effect on his young family; (2) he quit to get a job with a company that offered day hours, but it turned out that the company was not hiring; and (3) he should be able to collect benefits under the circumstances. We affirm. = = = = A07-649 In the Matter of the Civil Commitment of: Kenneth Richard Domrose. PARKER, Judge On appeal from an order for indeterminate commitment as a sexually dangerous person, appellant Kenneth Domrose argues that the district court erred in (1) determining that the evidence clearly and convincingly showed that he is highly likely to reoffend within the meaning of the civil-commitment statute; (2) striking an affidavit from the record submitted after the trial; and (3) ruling that rule 22 of the special rules of civil commitment is constitutional. Because the evidence clearly and convincingly supports the district court's determination that appellant is a sexually dangerous person and appellant's other arguments have no merit, we affirm. = = = = A06-1818 In re Conservatorship of Ruth V. Hopkins, Protected Person. PARKER, Judge Appellant challenges a July 2006 district court order discharging respondent-conservator, arguing that her nursing home did not have authority to submit a receipt on her behalf for the balance due on her conservatorship accounts, the condition precedent for the conservator's discharge. We affirm. = = = = A07-340 In the Matter of the Welfare of the Children of: B.K., M.C., J.N. and D.S., Parents MUEHLBERG, Judge On appeal after remand, appellant-mother argues that termination of her parental rights should be reversed because the district court failed to abide by the terms of this court's remand that required findings explaining why termination was in the children's best interests. Because the district court's new findings adequately address the children's best interests and are supported by clear-and-convincing evidence, we affirm. = = = = A06-865 In re the Marriage of: Barbara A. Kinley, n/k/a Barbara A. Peck, petitioner, Respondent, vs. Timothy C. Kinley, Appellant. MUEHLBERG, Judge On appeal in what is largely a parenting dispute, appellant-father argues that the district court's order prohibiting father from discussing "inappropriate" religious topics with the children violates his right to free exercise of religion and free speech under the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution. He also asserts that the order is vague and overbroad. We reverse and remand. = = = = A06-2376 Duluth Amateur Hockey Association, Inc., Respondent, vs. West Bend Mutual Insurance Company, Appellant. WILLIS, Judge Appellant insurance company challenges the district court's grant of summary judgment to respondent, arguing that the district court erred by determining that the insurance policy at issue covered business personal property that was destroyed in a fire. 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 Law Firm 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. |
