MINNEAPOLIS PERSONAL INJURY ATTORNEY  
attorney Michael E. Douglas Attorney at Law
  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@injurylawtwincities.com

 

UNPUBLISHED CIVIL OPINIONS FROM THE MINNESOTA COURT OF APPEALS

A06-1734


Vladimir 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.

 

 
 
 

  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 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.