| MINNEAPOLIS PERSONAL INJURY ATTORNEY |
|
|
 |
 |
 |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
UNPUBLISHED CIVIL OPINIONS FROM THE MINNESOTA COURT OF APPEALSA06-2147In re the Marriage of: Carol Ann Weeks, n/k/a Carol Ann Von Ende, petitioner, Appellant, vs. Kevin Robert Weeks, Respondent. KLAPHAKE, Judge Appellant Carol Ann Weeks, now known as Carol Ann Von Ende, challenges the district court's order denying her motion to modify respondent Kevin Robert Weeks' child support obligation and to amend language related to the emancipation of the parties' disabled child. Because there has not been a substantial change in circumstances that renders the original support order unreasonable and unfair, the district court did not abuse its discretion by refusing to modify respondent's support obligation. We therefore affirm the district court's support order. But because the district court's order regarding the emancipation language is unclear, we modify the court's order to conform to the statutory language. = = = = A06-1873 Sheila Sholl, Relator, vs. Evangelical Lutheran Good Samaritan Society, Respondent, Department of Employment and Economic Development, Respondent. KLAPHAKE, Judge Pro se relator Sheila Sholl challenges an unemployment law judge's (ULJ's) determination that relator is disqualified from receiving unemployment benefits. Relator filed a claim for benefits while she was on an extended leave of absence from her job as a licensed practical nurse with respondent Evangelical Lutheran Good Samaritan Society. She claimed that she could not return to her job because her supervisors had harassed her and would have created a hostile work environment upon her return. Because relator's subjective belief that she was being persecuted and conspired against does not constitute such harassment or unfair treatment so as to compel an average, reasonable employee to quit and become unemployed, we affirm the ULJ's determination that relator was disqualified from receiving benefits. = = = = A06-1373 Jack D. Grabow, et al., Respondents, Charles C. Cleland, intervenor, Respondent, vs. James C. Weaver, et al., Appellants, Daniel J. Kinsella, et al., Defendants. KLAPHAKE, Judge The parties in this case own property located along the southeast shore of Pelican Lake in Crow Wing County. Respondents John and Nellie Weaver, along with Jack and Gloria Grabow, brought this declaratory judgment against appellants James and Melanie Weaver and others who were dismissed from this action prior to trial. Respondents sought to protect their easement rights over a historic road that crosses the parties' properties; this dispute was precipitated by appellants' decision to reroute the road to the southern edge of their property, away from their buildings. Respondent Charles Cleland, who owns property to the northeast of appellants, intervened, initially claiming that he is entitled to a prescriptive easement over the historic road and later revising his complaint to include a claim that he also has a "deeded easement"[1] over the road. In August 2005, the district court granted summary judgment to the Grabows and reformed their 1974 deed to include an easement over the historic road; appellants do not challenge this determination, and the Grabows are not part of this appeal. But the district court denied summary judgment to respondents and to Cleland, determining that genuine issues of fact existed as to their claims. Following a three-day trial, the court ruled that the new road constructed by appellants was not a "comparable alternative" to the historic road and that respondents continued to hold an easement over the historic road based on the language of a 1977 deed. The court also found that Cleland and his predecessor-in-interest had continuous possession of an "unrestricted deeded easement" over the historic road, which served to overcome the presumption of abandonment under the Marketable Title Act. See Minn. Stat. ? 541.023, subd. 1 (2004). This appeal followed the district court's denial of appellants' motion for amended findings or a new trial.[2] Because the district court did not clearly err in finding that appellants' new road was not a "comparable alternative" to the historic road, as required by the language of the 1977 deed, we affirm on that issue. But because the record fails to establish Cleland's claim to an "unrestricted deeded easement," the court erred in granting such an easement; its decision on that issue is reversed. And because the court failed to make any findings on the scope of Cleland's prescriptive easement, if any, we remand to the district court on that issue. = = = = A06-1683 Michael R. Krizak, Relator, vs. Freelance Professionals Inc., Respondent, Department of Employment and Economic Development, Respondent. MINGE, Judge In this certiorari appeal, relator Michael Krizak challenges a decision by the unemployment law judge (ULJ) that Krizak was disqualified from receiving unemployment benefits because he had been discharged for employment misconduct. Krizak contends that (a) the majority of his absences were excused; and (b) his former employer should have produced, and the ULJ should have obtained, attendance records. 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. |
