| MINNEAPOLIS PERSONAL INJURY ATTORNEY |
|
|
 |
 |
 |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
UNPUBLISHED CIVIL OPINIONS FROM THE MINNESOTA COURT OF APPEALSA07-1756Steven Rousseau, Appellant, vs. Cal R. Ludeman, Commissioner of Human Services, Respondent. HUDSON, Judge Appellant challenges the judicial appeal panel's decision denying his request for a provisional discharge from his indeterminate commitment as mentally ill and dangerous. Because the panel sufficiently weighed witness credibility, the panel's findings are sustained by the record as a whole, and the panel did not err in concluding that appellant did not meet the statutory criteria for a provisional discharge, we affirm. = = = = A07-1675 In the Matter of the Welfare of the Child of: S.L., Parent. STONEBURNER, Judge On appeal from termination of her parental rights (TPR), appellant mother argues that the district court abused its discretion in evidentiary rulings and that there is insufficient evidence to support any of the three statutory grounds on which the district court based TPR. Because any abuse of the district court's broad discretion in evidentiary rulings was harmless in this case, there is clear and convincing evidence that appellant failed to abide by the duties of the parent and child relationship, and reasonable efforts failed to correct conditions leading to the out-of-home placement, we affirm. = = = = A07-1589 In the Matter of the Welfare of the Children of: S.L.B. and W.A.H., Parents. JOHNSON, Judge S.L.B. is a single mother with three children, twins born in December 2004 and an infant born in June 2007. In April 2007, the Otter Tail County Department of Human Services filed a petition to terminate her parental rights to the twins. After a three-day trial, the district court granted the county's petition. S.L.B.'s appeal presents the question whether the county's evidence was sufficient to prove, by clear and convincing evidence, any of three statutory bases for termination, namely, that S.L.B. failed to satisfy the duties of the parent-child relationship, failed to correct the conditions leading to an out-of-home placement, or is a palpably unfit parent. See Minn. Stat. ? 260C.301, subd. 1(b)(2), (4), (5) (2006). We conclude that the evidence does not support the district court's findings of fact and conclusions of law and, therefore, reverse. = = = = A07-1567 In re the Marriage of: Kristine M. Kast, petitioner, Respondent, vs. Richard W. Kast, Appellant. KALITOWSKI, Judge Appellant Richard W. Kast challenges the district court's judgment dissolving his marriage, arguing that the district court abused its discretion in (1) awarding respondent-mother sole physical custody of the parties' two minor children; (2) determining his total child-support arrears; and (3) dividing the parties' marital debt and marital assets. We affirm. = = = = A07-1535 In the Matter of the Welfare of the Children of: K.A.T.-K., R.W.K., and M.R.H., Parents HALBROOKS, Judge Appellant challenges the district court's order granting permanent legal and physical custody of M.T.H. to respondent M.R.H., his father. Because there is substantial evidence to support the district court's findings that (1) the transfer of custody to respondent is in M.T.H.'s best interests, (2) social services made reasonable efforts to reunify appellant with M.T.H., and (3) the conditions that led to M.T.H.'s out-of-home placement were not corrected and the district court did not err in ordering the transfer, we affirm. = = = = A07-1511 In the Matter of the Welfare of the Children of: S. P. L. a/k/a P. M., S. C., G. A., and R. D., Parents. WORKE, Judge On appeal from the termination of her parental rights, appellant argues that the district court erred in (1) determining that clear and convincing evidence supports the findings that appellant is palpably unfit and that the county's reasonable efforts to correct the conditions leading to the out-of-home placement failed; and (2) ordering that appellant was to have no contact with her children in out-of-home placement following the termination. We affirm the termination of parental rights and reverse the no-contact order. = = = = A07-1159 Cindy Sue Lubich n/k/a Cindy Sue Miller, petitioner, Respondent, vs. Alan Scott Lubich, Appellant. TOUSSAINT, Chief Judge Appellant Alan Scott Lubich challenges the denial of his motion to modify the child support of the parties' sons, now 19 and 18, arguing that the district court should have applied the Hortis/Valento formula because, although respondent Cindy Sue Lubich, n/k/a Cindy Sue Miller, had physical custody of their sons, one son resided with appellant full-time and the other resided with him half-time. Appellant also argues that the district court should have offset the expenses he incurred while the sons were living with him against his child-support arrearages. Because we see no error in the denial of the motion to modify child support, we affirm. = = = = A07-1087 In the Matter of the Welfare of the Child of: R.C. and R.G., Parents. LANSING, Judge The district court terminated the parental rights of RC and RG to their two-year-old daughter, SG. On appeal, we conclude that clear and convincing evidence supports the district court's findings on the statutory grounds for termination, that termination is in SG's best interests, and that the district court did not rely on inadmissible evidence in reaching its determination. Accordingly, we affirm. = = = = A07-0885 Brandon Matthew Peck, Respondent, County of Itasca, Respondent, vs. Jennifer Hron, Appellant. SHUMAKER, Judge In this appeal from the district court's denial without an evidentiary hearing of appellant's motion for custody modification, appellant argues that her affidavits offered in support of her motion firmly establish a prima facie case for modification. Because the district court did not abuse its discretion in determining that appellant failed to set forth a prima facie case to warrant an evidentiary hearing, we affirm. = = = = A07-0865 In re the Matter of: John Thomas Kurhajetz, Appellant, vs. Madeline Mae Fenice, Respondent. SHUMAKER, Judge On appeal in this custody dispute, appellant-father contends that the district court abused its discretion by awarding sole physical custody to respondent-mother and that the parenting time awarded to him is deficient, because the district court failed to consider the best interests of the child; the awarded parenting time is less than that which was awarded in temporary orders and is inconsistent with recommendations of the guardian ad litem (GAL) and mother; the district court failed to provide specific instructions as to when and where the holiday exchanges would take place; and the awarded parenting time is to be further reduced without an evidentiary basis once the child begins elementary school. We affirm in part and reverse in part. = = = = A07-0775 Crown Equipment Rental Co., Inc., judgment creditor, Respondent, vs. J. B. Builders, LLC, Judgment Debtor, and Primesite Investments, LLC, garnishee, Appellant. SCHELLHAS, Judge This is an appeal in a garnishment proceeding involving real property against which the debtor had a mechanic's lien. The district court granted the judgment-creditor garnishor's motion for summary judgment and awarded the garnishor a personal judgment against the garnishee-landowner for the amount of the mechanic's lien. The garnishee-landowner appeals. Because the relevant authority does not allow a personal judgment against the garnishee-landowner under the facts in this case, we reverse the judgment against the garnishee-landowner. = = = = A07-0530 Atlantic Credit & Finance, Respondent, vs. James R. Dustrude, Appellant. CRIPPEN, Judge Appellant James Dustrude contends that the district court abused its discretion in refusing to vacate a default judgment that was entered when he failed to appear at the summary judgment proceeding. Because appellant failed to show he has a meritorious defense or other factors constituting cause for vacation, we affirm. = = = = A07-0453 Gary I. Carpenter, Relator, vs. Cambridge Technologies Inc., Respondent, and Department of Employment and Economic Development, Respondent. CONNOLLY, Judge This case arose after relator quit his job at respondent. Relator subsequently filed for unemployment benefits but a decision of the unemployment law judge (ULJ) disqualified him from receiving them. The ULJ determined that relator quit his job for other than a good reason caused by his employer pursuant to Minn. Stat. ? 268.095, subd. 1 (Supp. 2005). Relator appeals that decision, arguing that (1) respondent misrepresented the nature of the job, constituting a breach of the employment agreement; (2) the ULJ did not define an average reasonable worker; (3) relator repeatedly tried to discuss the adverse working conditions and give respondent a chance to correct them; and (4) the findings of fact by the ULJ were erroneous. We affirm. = = = = A07-0441 Outdoor Specialties and Landscaping, LLC, Appellant, vs. Minnesota Assigned Risk Plan, as administered by Berkley Risk Administrators Company, LLC, Respondent. LANSING, Judge After an employee was injured on the job, Outdoor Specialties and Landscaping, LLC brought an action seeking a declaration that it was covered by the Minnesota Workers' Compensation Assigned Risk Plan. The district court concluded that Outdoor Specialties' insurance had been properly cancelled and granted summary judgment. Because Outdoor Specialties received legally sufficient notice of the cancellation and the cancellation was based on a permissible reason, we affirm. = = = = A07-0253 Joyce A. Barry, Relator, vs. Department of Employment and Economic Development, Respondent. CRIPPEN, Judge Relator Joyce Barry disputes the adequacy of evidence to support the determination that she was ineligible for previously paid benefits and thus must make repayment and pay a penalty for fraud. We affirm on this issue and on relator's dispute on the fairness of the hearing process. = = = = A07-252 Damian Salib, Respondent, vs. Allstate Insurance Company, Appellant. WILLIS, Judge Appellant Allstate Insurance Company challenges the district court's judgment in favor of respondent Damien Salib, arguing that the district court erred by concluding that, under the collateral-source statute, Allstate was not entitled to a reduction of the damages award for the amount of workers'-compensation benefits that Salib received. We affirm. = = = = A06-2345 County of Nicollet on behalf of Lori Stevenson, Respondent, vs. David A. Machau, Appellant. STONEBURNER, Judge Appellant challenges an order establishing payments for child-support arrears and requiring appellant to seek employment, arguing that the child-support magistrate erroneously found him to be voluntarily unemployed. We affirm. = = = = A07-111 In the Matter of the Findings of Abuse by Dave Lloyd Kulee. WORKE, Judge Relator challenges respondent's determination that (1) the Minnesota Department of Health proved by a preponderance of the evidence that relator abused a vulnerable adult, and (2) relator was properly disqualified from positions involving direct contact with persons receiving services from certain programs. Because we conclude that respondent's determinations were not supported by substantial evidence, and relator was not properly disqualified, we reverse. |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 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. |
