| MINNEAPOLIS PERSONAL INJURY ATTORNEY |
|
|
 |
 |
 |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
UNPUBLISHED CIVIL OPINIONS FROM THE MINNESOTA COURT OF APPEALSA06-2111In re the Marriage of: Kory Lee Tuominen, petitioner, Appellant, vs. Michelle Janine Johnston,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 respondent husband'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. |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 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. |
