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UNPUBLISHED CIVIL OPINIONS FROM THE MINNESOTA COURT OF APPEALS

A06-2111

In re the Marriage of:
Kory Lee Tuominen, petitioner,
Appellant,

vs.

Michelle Janine Johnston,
Respondent.

TOUSSAINT, Judge
Appellant Kory Lee Tuominen challenges the district court's
supplemental dissolution judgment, arguing that the district court
erroneously modified the parties' fully executed written supplemental
marital termination agreement by adopting respondent Michelle Janine
Johnston's version of the proposed supplemental judgment. Because the
district court erred by not providing any reason or explanation for
adopting respondent's version of the proposed judgment and not holding
an additional hearing to resolve the disputed language, we reverse and
remand.

= = = =

A06-1612

Rose Gibbs,
Relator,

vs.

Metropolitan Housing and Redevelopment Authority,
Respondent.


TOUSSAINT, Chief Judge
Relator Rose Gibbs seeks certiorari review of the decision
of respondent Metropolitan Housing and Redevelopment Authority (MHRA) to
terminate her Section 8 rental assistance, arguing that: (1) the
evidence does not support termination of her benefits; (2) the decision
was arbitrary and capricious because MHRA failed to consider mitigating
circumstances; (3) she was denied procedural due process when given
inadequate notice by MHRA of her alleged violations; and (4) MHRA failed
to make adequate findings of fact. Because substantial evidence
supported MHRA's decision, the decision was not arbitrary and
capricious, relator was not denied procedural due process, and the
findings are sufficient to permit meaningful review, we affirm.

= = = =

A06-2366

Terry R. DeRohan, petitioner,
Appellant,

vs.

William E. DeRohan,
Respondent.

LANSING, Judge
The district court granted William DeRohan's motion for a
spousal-maintenance modification following his voluntary early
retirement. In this appeal from the modification order, Terry DeRohan
challenges the district court's determination of good faith, the
admission of affidavit testimony from her former attorney, and the
adequacy of the findings to support a termination of maintenance in
three years. Although the record is factually limited, we conclude that
it is adequate to support the district court's determination that
William DeRohan's retirement was in good faith and that the affidavit
evidence, which is relevant primarily to procedural issues, did not
result in reversible error. But because the record contains no findings
on future financial resources that would support termination of
maintenance, we reverse and remand for additional findings and, if
necessary, further proceedings.

= = = =

A06-2195

In re the Marriage of:

Marian C. Dunham, petitioner,
Respondent,

vs.

Milton G. Dunham,
Appellant.

RANDALL, Judge
On appeal from a dissolution judgment, appellant-husband
argues that the district court (a) erred in finding respondent-wife had
a non-marital interest in the parties' homestead; (b) erred in
excluding an exhibit rebutting her non-marital claim; (c) erred in
deducting "loans" from respondent's mother from the homestead equity;
(d) erred in determining severance pay received by appellant was an
advance property distribution to him; (e) erred in excluding 2003 tax
liability from the property division; (f) erred by awarding respondent a
disproportionate amount of the marital estate; (g) erred in awarding
respondent need-based attorney fees; and (h) erred by not considering if
the attorney fees award caused appellant undue hardship. We affirm in
part, reverse in part, and remand.

=- = = =

A06-2369

Keith Soderbeck,
Appellant,

vs.

Center for Diagnostic Imaging, Inc.,
Respondent.

PETERSON, Judge
In this appeal from a judgment granting respondent's motion
to enforce a mediated settlement agreement and directing respondent to
make payment to appellant in accordance with the agreement, appellant
argues that the district court (1) erred in finding that appellant was
competent at the time that the settlement agreement was signed, and (2)
failed to determine whether the settlement agreement was improvident.
Because the district court's finding that appellant was competent at the
settlement conference is not clearly erroneous, we affirm in part. But
because the district court did not analyze the applicable factors when
it determined that the agreement was improvident, we reverse in part and
remand.

= = = =

A06-2138

In re the Conservatorship of Virginia D. Anderson, Conservatee

HUDSON, Judge
On appeal from an order correcting disbursements from the
co-conservators' Second, Third, and Fourth Annual Accounts, appellant
argues that the district court abused its discretion in: (1) denying
attorney fees for co-conservator Stone's attorney in a related
vulnerable-adult litigation; (2) reducing attorney fees incurred by
co-conservators Stone and Taylor; and (3) reducing co-conservator
Stone's mileage fees. Because the district court did not abuse its
discretion in correcting the disbursements from these annual accounts,
we affirm.

= = = =

A07-0055

Friends of Lake Minnie Belle, et al.,
Appellants,

vs.

Meeker County Board of Commissioners, et al.,
Respondents,

Dan Fitterer,
Respondent.

WRIGHT, Judge
After determining that an environmental impact study (EIS) was
not necessary, respondent county board granted a conditional use permit
(CUP) that allows respondent project proposer to expand his dairy
feedlot operation. Appellants filed a declaratory-judgment action in
district court to challenge the negative EIS declaration. The district
court subsequently granted respondents' motions for summary judgment,
affirming the county board's determination. On appeal from the district
court's grant of summary judgment in favor of the board and project
proposer, appellants argue that the board acted arbitrarily and
capriciously by concluding that the proposed project did not have the
potential for significant environmental effects and by failing to
properly analyze the cumulative potential effects of the proposed
project and related projects. Appellants also maintain that the board
erred by refusing to consider evidence submitted after the
public-comment period but before the board's decision. We affirm.



= = = =

A06-2352

In re the Marriage of:
Larry Thorvold Vee, petitioner,
Respondent,

vs.

Cheryl Yvonne Vee,
Appellant.


WRIGHT, Judge
Appellant-wife challenges the district court's denial of her
motion to modify respondenthusband's spousal-maintenance obligation,
arguing that she established a substantial change in circumstances,
thereby rendering the existing maintenance award unreasonable and
unfair. Appellant also challenges the district court's decision to deny
attorney fees, and she seeks attorney fees and costs on appeal. We
affirm in part and remand in part. We also remand wife's motion for
appellate attorney fees.

= = = =

A06-2431

In the Matter of:
Afra Bragg and obo minor children, petitioner,
Appellant,

vs.

Johnny Hudson,
Respondent.

WORKE, Judge
On appeal from the denial of an order for protection in a
domestic-abuse dispute, appellant argues that the district court (1)
failed to recognize that it could make a negative inference from
respondent's assertion of his Fifth Amendment privilege against
self-incrimination; (2) improperly considered extra-record evidence; and
(3) lacked impartiality, which deprived appellant of due process of law.
We reverse and remand.

= = = =

A07-1143


In the Matter of the
Welfare of the Child of:
M.W., Parent.

HUSPENI, Judge
On appeal from the entry of a stayed order in which
appellant M.W. voluntarily terminated her parental rights to her
daughter, appellant argues that (a) she was denied her rights to
substantive and procedural due process of law; (b) the record does not
support termination of her parental rights; and (c) the record does not
show that termination of her parental rights is in the child's best
interests. Because our review of the record convinces us that there was
no denial of substantive or procedural due-process rights, that
substantial evidence in the record supports termination of parental
rights and the filing of an order to that effect, and that such
termination is in the best interests of the minor child, we affirm.

= = = =

A05-2014
Commandeur LLC, et al., Appellants, vs. Howard Hartry, Inc.,
Respondent.
Reversed and remanded. Judge Bruce D. Willis.
Dissenting, Judge David Minge.
Hennepin County District Court, Hon. Robert H. Lynn.


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.
Affirmed in part, reversed in part and remanded. Judge
Bruce D. Willis.
Hennepin County District Court, Hon. Pamela G. Alexander.

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.

 

 
 
 

  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.