| MINNEAPOLIS PERSONAL INJURY ATTORNEY |
|
|
 |
 |
 |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
UNPUBLISHED CIVIL OPINIONS FROM THE MINNESOTA COURT OF APPEALSA07-1206In the Matter of the Welfare of the Child of: J.M.B. and J.J.C., Parents. Affirmed. Judge Harriet Lansing. Concurring specially, Judge Kevin G. Ross. Itasca County District Court, Hon. John Hawkinson. LANSING, Judge The district court terminated JJC's parental rights in April 2007, finding that clear-and-convincing evidence established two statutory criteria for termination and that termination was in the best interests of the child. On appeal, JJC argues that the district court's decision is not supported by sufficient evidence and that it erred when it relieved the county from making reasonable efforts to reunify JJC with his child. Because the district court's findings are supported by substantial evidence, the court's conclusions are not clearly erroneous, and the district court properly applied statutory criteria when it relieved the county from making reasonable efforts to reunify JJC with his child, we affirm. A06-2433 In re the Marriage of: Jennifer Louise Weiss, petitioner, Respondent, vs. William John Weiss, Appellant. Affirmed. Judge Thomas J. Kalitowski. Washington County District Court, Hon. David Doyscher. KALITOWSKI, Judge Appellant William J. Weiss challenges the district court's order denying his motion to modify his child-support obligation. We affirm. A06-1860 Whitebox Advisors, LLC, et al., Respondents, vs. Brocade Communications Systems, Inc., Appellant. Affirmed in part and reversed in part. Judge Thomas J. Kalitowski. Hennepin County District Court, Hon. Robert H. Lynn. KALITOWSKI, Judge Appellant Brocade Communications Systems, Inc. challenges the district court's grant of summary judgment for respondents, Whitebox Advisors, LLC, et al., on their breach-of-contract claim. By notice of review respondents dispute the applicable prejudgment interest rate under the terms of the parties' indenture. We affirm in part, concluding that the district court properly determined the interest rate. But because appellant properly and timely discharged the indenture prior to the occurrence of an event of default, we reverse both the district court's grant of respondents' motion for summary judgment on their breach-of-contract claim and the court's denial of appellant's motion for summary judgment. A06-2164 Ann Louise Mathisen, Respondent, vs. Drew Prescott Simpson, Appellant. Reversed and remanded. Judge Roger M. Klaphake Lake County District Court, Hon. Kenneth A. Sandvik. KLAPHAKE, Judge The parties, who were not married, cohabited on land titled in the name of the brother of appellant Drew Simpson. The parties improved that land. Later, appellant's brother transferred title to the property to respondent Ann Mathisen, and appellant alleges that respondent orally gave him an option to acquire the property. After the parties' relationship ended, respondent moved off the property, appellant filed a mechanics' lien on the property, and respondent sued appellant, seeking to regain possession of the property and to have the mechanics' lien discharged. Appellant counterclaimed for a constructive trust, alleging, among other things, that (1) he had purchased and paid for the property but titled it in the name of his brother, and later respondent, for tax reasons; (2) respondent breached the oral option contract; (3) the mechanics' lien was valid; and (4) respondent should not be allowed to unjustly enrich herself by retaining title to the property. The district court granted respondent's motion for summary judgment, ruling that appellant's mechanics' lien was unenforceable, that respondent owns the property free and clear of appellant's claims, and that appellant must vacate the property. We reverse and remand. A07-4 Ivan Merlin Johnson, Appellant, vs. Minnesota Department of Public Safety, Respondent. Affirmed. Judge Jill Flaskamp Halbrooks. Ramsey County District Court, Hon. Paulette K. Flynn. HALBROOKS, Judge Appellant Ivan Merlin Johnson brought a civil complaint in district court, seeking a declaratory judgment that Minn. Stat. ? 171.04 (2004) and Minn. R. 7503.1300 (2003) are unconstitutional because the statute and rule violate appellant's due-process rights and are vague and overbroad. Appellant sought reinstatement of his driver's license and injunctive relief, prohibiting the state from enforcing Minn. Stat. ? 171.04 and from applying Minn. R. 7503.1300. Respondent Minnesota Department of Public Safety moved to dismiss appellant's complaint on the ground that the review procedure, including the 180-day limitation in Minn. Stat. ? 171.19 (2004), is the exclusive remedy for review of appellant's driving privileges and that a declaratory-judgment action is inappropriate. The district court granted respondent's motion to dismiss, concluding that the 180-day limitation bars appellant's claim, that revocation of appellant's license is proper, and that section 171.04 and rule 7503.1300 are constitutional. We affirm. A06-2430, A07-255 Doug Johnson, Washington County Attorney, Respondent, vs. One 1994 Honda Civic Serial #1HGEJ1124RL003666, License Plate #KND039, et al., Defendants (A06-2430); One 1996 Chevrolet Blazer, Serial #1GNDT13W5T2170630, License Plate #LLP 307; et al., Defendants (A07-255); Soua Vang, Appellant. Affirmed in part and remanded. Judge David Minge. Washington County District Court, Hon. B. William Ekstrum. Minge, Judge In this consolidated appeal from the judicial forfeiture of a 1996 Chevrolet Blazer and a 1994 Honda Civic, appellant Soua Vang contends that because the mere presence of controlled substances in an automobile is not sufficient to associate a vehicle with criminal activity, the district court erred in granting respondent's summary judgment motion. Because we conclude that the Blazer and Civic were used to transport controlled substances, in violation of Minn. Stat. ? 609.5311, we affirm the forfeiture of the Civic and affirm the forfeiture of appellant's ownership interest in the Blazer. But because the district court found that there may be another person with a partial ownership interest in the Blazer who has not been notified of the forfeiture of that vehicle, we remand the Blazer forfeiture. A07-1234 In the Matter of the Welfare of the Children of: R. E. R., Parent. Affirmed. Judge Natalie E. Hudson. Clay County District Court, Hon. Steven J. Cahill. HUDSON, Judge In this termination-of-parental-rights appeal, mother argues that the district court violated the doctrines of collateral estoppel and res judicata by focusing on evidence involved in a prior, failed attempt to terminate her parental rights; improperly used mother's relationship with a third party as a basis for termination when the third party has not harmed the children and offered to undergo any treatment the county deems necessary; and made findings of fact that are unsupported by the record. We affirm. A06-2467 Vicky L. Stewart, Relator, vs. Executive Affiliates Inc, Respondent; Department of Employment and Economic Development, Respondent. Affirmed. Judge Natalie E. Hudson. Department of Employment and Economic Development. HUDSON, Judge On writ of certiorari from an order affirming the dismissal of relator's appeal from the unemployment-compensation-disqualification determination, relator argues that her appeal should not have been dismissed as untimely. Because an unemployment-law judge under Minn. Stat. ? 268.101, subd. 2(e) (2006), has no jurisdiction to review an untimely appeal, we affirm. A06-2323 Richard A. Born, Appellant, vs. Donald E. Berg, Respondent. Affirmed. Judge Natalie E. Hudson. Hennepin County District Court, Hon. Robert H. Lynn. HUDSON, Judge This is an appeal from summary judgment on appellant's action against respondent for breach of contract, fraud, unjust enrichment, and reformation to recover money appellant loaned to respondent pursuant to a promissory note. Appellant argues that he is entitled to rely on parol evidence to ascertain the parties' intent regarding two release agreements appellant signed after execution of the promissory note and because there are factual disputes regarding the execution of the release agreements. By notice of review, respondent argues that the district court abused its discretion by denying his motion for rule 11 sanctions. The release agreements are unambiguous and preclude appellant's claims against respondent. In addition, the district court did not abuse its discretion by denying respondent's motion for sanctions. Accordingly, we affirm. A06-2134 Pamela D. Hunt, Appellant, vs. Nosratollah Mazaharirvesh, Respondent. Affirmed in part, reversed in part and remanded. Judge Christopher J. Dietzen. Hennepin County District Court, Hon. Kevin S. Burke. DIETZEN, Judge Appellant challenges a district court order and resulting judgment denying her claims arising out of the purchase of a motor vehicle from respondent, arguing that the district court erred in its application of the law. We affirm in part, reverse in part, and remand. A06-1897 Sylvester Devereaux Holmes, petitioner, Appellant, vs. Elaine Marie Holmes, Respondent. Affirmed as modified. Judge Doris Ohlsen Huspeni.* Hennepin County District Court, Hon. Regina M. Chu. HUSPENI, Judge In seeking review of several decisions of the trial court in a dissolution judgment, appellant challenges (a) the custody award, claiming that the court erred in adopting a written stipulation between the parties; (b) the classification of certain intra-family transactions as loans rather than gifts; (c) the division of marital property and debts; (d) the allocation of retirement accounts; (e) the trial court's order for the parties to file separate tax returns for the years 2004 and 2005; (f) the requirement that appellant maintain adequate life insurance to cover any future maintenance or child-support obligations; and (g) the court's failure to address respondent's alleged squandering of marital assets. Because we conclude that the trial court did not err in accepting the written custody stipulation between the parties, because evidence in the record supports each of the contested decisions of the trial court, and because there was no abuse of discretion in those decisions, we affirm. A05-2014 Commandeur LLC, et al., Appellants, vs. Howard Hartry, Inc., Respondent. WILLIS, Judge Appellants challenge the district court's grant of summary judgment to respondent, arguing that the district court erred by applying California's statutes of limitations to appellants' claims. Because we conclude that Minnesota's limitations period applies, we reverse and remand. A07-1263 In re the Petition of P.L. and T.L. to adopt D.L.S. WILLIS, Judge Appellants challenge the order of the district court dismissing for lack of standing their petition to adopt D.L.S. Appellants argue that the district court erred by (1) concluding that an adoptive placement of D.L.S. with appellants was required before their petition to adopt her could proceed, and (2) failing to consider whether it would be in D.L.S.'s or appellants' best interests to waive the requirement of an adoptive placement. Additionally, appellants argue that due process and other considerations require that their adoption petition be considered on its merits. We affirm in part, reverse in part, and remand. |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 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. |
