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UNPUBLISHED CIVIL OPINIONS FROM THE MINNESOTA COURT OF APPEALS

A06-2147

In 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.
 

 
 
 

  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.