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UNPUBLISHED CIVIL OPINIONS FROM THE MINNESOTA COURT OF APPEALS

A07-0905

Dale H. McKinley, et al.,
Respondents,

vs.

Danny O. Lundell, et al.,
Appellants.

JOHNSON, Judge
Dale McKinley and Mary Lundell are siblings and opposing parties
in this lawsuit. A Goodhue County jury found that they entered into an
oral contract by which Dale and Kathleen McKinley agreed to sell their
five-acre homestead to Mary and Danny Lundell, who agreed to rent the
property back to the McKinleys and later sell it back to the McKinleys
after the McKinleys recovered from a period of financial difficulties.
This lawsuit arose when the Lundells refused the McKinleys' request to
sell the property back to them.
The district court ordered specific performance of the contract after a
jury returned a verdict favorable to the McKinleys. When the
re-conveyance did not occur within the time period contemplated by the
district court, the McKinleys moved to clarify the amended judgment,
which the district court granted by allowing additional time for the
transaction to occur. The Lundells' appeal presents the question
whether the district court was permitted to clarify the amended
judgment. We conclude that it was and, therefore, affirm.
= = = =
A07-0898

Jamie Lee, et al.,
Appellants,

vs.

Ciara Meyers, defendant,
Cory Loeffler,
Respondent.

STONEBURNER, Judge
Appellants were injured when their motorcycle collided with a
stolen car driven by an unlicensed, 16-year-old driver. They challenge
summary judgment dismissing their negligence action against respondent,
the primary user of the vehicle. The district court concluded that, as
a matter of law, respondent did not owe appellants a duty of care
because he could not have foreseen that his car would be stolen and
negligently driven. We affirm.
= = = =
A07-0631

In re the Marriage of:

Debra Lynn Olson, petitioner,
Appellant,

vs.

Bruce Dwight Olson,
Respondent.

KALITOWSKI, Judge
Appellant Debra Lynn Olson n/k/a/ Debra Lynn Hotvedt challenges the
district court's denial of her motion for additional spousal
maintenance, arguing that: (1) under the statutory maintenance factors,
she was entitled to additional maintenance; (2) the record does not
support the district court's finding as to her expenses; (3) the record
does not support the district court's imputation of income to her; (4)
the district court's calculations of her ability to support herself
improperly require her to invade her property distribution; and (5) the
district court understated respondent Bruce Dwight Olson's ability to
pay maintenance by incorrectly determining that he retired upon the sale
of his business. We affirm.
= = = =
A07-591

In re the Marriage of:
Maxine Meredith Martin, petitioner,
Respondent,

vs.

Kalib Joyson Martin,
Appellant,

and

Dakota County,
Respondent.

WILLIS, Judge
In this support-modification proceeding, appellant challenges a
district-court order modifying his child-support obligation. We affirm.
= = = =
A07-577

Woodlake-VEF IV, LLC,
Respondent,

vs.

Cooperative Agency, Inc.,
f/k/a Gramercy Corporation,
Appellant.

HUDSON, Judge
Appellant argues that genuine issues of material fact exist regarding
whether respondent used its "best efforts" to relet commercial property
after appellant abandoned the space and that the district court erred by
granting summary judgment in favor of respondent. Because we conclude
that there are no genuine issues of material fact and that the district
court did not err by granting summary judgment in favor of respondent,
we affirm.
= = = =
A07-0446

American Family Mutual Insurance Company,
Respondent,

vs.

Angela Bauer, et al.,
Defendants,

Irene Livesay,
Appellant.

KALITOWSKI, Judge
Appellant Irene Livesay was injured in an accident involving
defendant-driver Angela Bauer. Appellant challenges the district
court's grant of summary judgment in a declaratory-judgment action, in
which the district court ruled that the regular-use exclusion in the
driver's insurance policy barred coverage. Appellant argues that: (1)
the exclusion violates Minn. Stat. ? 65.49, subd. 3 (2006), and is void;
and (2) alternatively, the district court erred in applying the
exclusion to the facts here. We affirm.
= = = =
A07-268

Gary J. N. Aamodt,
Respondent,

vs.

Arthur Renander, et al.,
Appellants.

WORKE, Judge
On appeal from a judgment and posttrial orders regarding repayment of a
promissory note, appellants argue that the district court erred in (1)
considering extrinsic evidence, in violation of the parol-evidence rule,
when determining the plain meaning of the promissory note; and (2)
finding that appellant-wife is liable for the loan. We affirm.
= = = =
A07-0202

Daniel Farhat,
Relator,

vs.

The Hertz Corporation,
Respondent,

Department of Employment and Economic Development,
Respondent.

SHUMAKER, Judge
Relator Daniel Farhat challenges an unemployment law judge's
(ULJ) decision that he was properly disqualified from receiving
unemployment benefits because he had been discharged for employment
misconduct. Farhat argues that the ULJ failed to make the requisite
credibility findings, conducted an unfair evidentiary hearing, erred in
determining that his actions constituted employment misconduct, and
improperly denied his last request for reconsideration. Because the ULJ
failed to make credibility findings, although the decision was based on
credibility, and the ULJ considered evidence outside the record, we
reverse the ULJ's decision and remand for further proceedings, without
reaching Farhat's other arguments.
= = = =
A07-0143

Tina Thuy Le, f/k/a Gai Thuy Le-Dang,
Respondent,

L & D, LLC,
Respondent,

vs.

Luan Minh Tong,
Appellant.

COLLINS, Judge
Appellant argues that (a) Minn. Stat. ?? 513.075, .076, 553.01 (2006)
bar respondent Tina Thuy Le's claims; (b) the record does not support
the claim of fraudulent misrepresentation; (c) the parol-evidence rule
precluded respondent from introducing oral testimony that she was
fraudulently induced into conveying her gas station to him; and (d) the
district court erred by denying appellant's claim for conversion. We
affirm.
= = = =
A07-0141

Troy J. Anderson,
Relator,

vs.

R. P. Enterprise, Inc.,
Respondent,

Department of Employment and Economic Development,
Respondent.

SHUMAKER, Judge
On this certiorari appeal, the pro se relator challenges the
determination of the unemployment-law judge (ULJ) that he is
disqualified from receiving unemployment benefits because he voluntarily
quit his employment without good reason caused by the employer. We
affirm.
= = = =
A07-72

Randee Ward,
Relator,

vs.

Larry Reids Bloomington Chrysler Jeep,
Respondent,

Department of Employment and Economic Development,
Respondent.

WORKE, Judge
Relator challenges the decision by the unemployment-law judge
that she was discharged for misconduct and disqualified from receiving
unemployment benefits after she did not report to work and took an
unauthorized extended leave from work, arguing that even though there
was no formal policy for requesting time off, she attempted to obtain
permission but was unable to reach her employer. We affirm.
= = = =
A07-38

Jami A. Awalt,
Relator,

vs.

Lindahl and Lindahl Partnership,
Respondent,

Department of Employment and Economic Development,
Respondent.

WORKE, Judge
Relator challenges the decision by the unemployment-law judge
that she quit her employment without good reason caused by her employer
and was disqualified from receiving unemployment benefits, arguing that
she had good reason to quit because her employer intentionally
disregarded federal law requiring lead-based-paint disclosure and blamed
her for something she did not do. We affirm.
= = = =
A06-2198

David J. Gherity,
Appellant,

vs.

Marvin Brewer,
Respondent.

WRIGHT, Judge
Appellant challenges the district court's denial of his motion, under
Minn. R. Civ. P. 60.02, for relief from a stipulated judgment, arguing
that he is entitled to such relief because respondent induced him to
settle by misrepresenting the value of real property that was conveyed
as consideration in support of the settlement agreement. We affirm.
= = = =
A07-0777

Randy Joseph McKinnon, petitioner,
Appellant,

vs.

Joan Fabian, Commissioner of Corrections,
Respondent

KALITOWSKI, Judge
Pro se appellant Randy Joseph McKinnon challenges the district court's
order denying his petition for a writ of habeas corpus, arguing that (1)
the Commissioner of Corrections (commissioner) lacked authority to order
appellant to participate in chemical-dependency treatment and discipline
him for failing to do so; (2) the disciplinary hearing violated
appellant's procedural due process rights; and (3) the imposed
disciplinary sanction violated appellant's equal protection rights. 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.