| MINNEAPOLIS PERSONAL INJURY ATTORNEY |
|
|
 |
 |
 |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
UNPUBLISHED CIVIL OPINIONS FROM THE MINNESOTA COURT OF APPEALSA07-0905Dale H. McKinley, et al., Respondents, vs. Danny O. Lundell, et al., Appellants.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. |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 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. |
