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UNPUBLISHED CIVIL OPINIONS FROM THE MINNESOTA COURT OF APPEALS

A07-2271

In the Matter of the Civil Commitment of:
Richard Arnold Bracken

MINGE, Judge
Appellant challenges his indeterminate commitment as a sexually dangerous person (SDP) and sexual psychopathic personality (SPP) claiming that (1) the district court should have instead committed him as a developmentally disabled person (DDP) under Minn. Stat. 253B.02, subd. 14, .09, subd. 1 (2006); and (2) there was insufficient evidence warranting his commitment as a SDP/SPP. Because we conclude that the district court did not err by denying appellant's request for DDP commitment and the evidence was sufficient to commit appellant as a SDP/SPP, we affirm.
= = = =
A07-2191

In the Matter of the Welfare of the Child of:
P. Y. A. and P. A. A., Parents.

HALBROOKS, Judge
Appellants challenge the termination of their parental rights on the grounds that the district court relied on the recommendation of the guardian ad litem and did not make its own best-interests findings concerning how termination serves the interests of all four children and social services did not attempt to reunify appellants with their children or place their children in the homes of relatives. Because the district court properly determined that M.A. suffered egregious harm while in their care and because the county was therefore not required to make reasonable efforts to reunify appellants with their children, we affirm in part. But because the district court did not make specific findings regarding whether the record contains clear and convincing evidence that P.Y.A. and P.A.A. knew or should have known that egregious harm occurred, we reverse in part and remand.
= = = =
A07-1271

Leon A. Helmbrecht, et al.,
Respondents,

vs.

Troyd Helmbrecht,
Appellant.

HARTEN, Judge
Appellant Troyd Helmbrecht moved under Minn. R. Civ. P. 60.02 for relief from a judgment against him in favor of his father, respondent Leon Helmbrecht, on the ground that a mortgage owed on the property that the trial court divided between them was not considered in the division. Because we see no abuse of discretion in the district court's denial of the motion, we affirm.
= = = =
A07-1229

Diversified Industries, Inc., d/b/a Payroll Control Systems,
Appellant,

vs.

Captains of the Guard, Inc.,
Defendant,

Jonathan Beecham,
Respondent.

HARTEN, Judge
Appellant Diversified Industries, Inc., d/b/a Payroll Control Systems (PCS), challenges the summary judgment dismissing all appellant's claims against respondent Jonathan Beecham, CEO of respondent Captains of the Guard, Inc. (CG). Because we see no genuine issue of material fact and respondents are entitled to judgment as a matter of law, we affirm.
= = = =
A07-1135

In re the Marriage of:
Mary Jane Chaignot, petitioner,
Respondent,

vs.

Edward Barton Chapin, Jr.,
Appellant.

HUDSON, Judge
On appeal after remand, appellant argues that the district court failed to follow this court's remand instructions by failing to consider a debt when dividing the marital estate thereby rendering the division of the marital estate inequitable. We affirm.
= = = =
A07-1091

Donald Slama, Jr., et al., petitioners,
Appellants,

vs.

Pine County, et al.,
Respondents.

CONNOLLY, Judge
This appeal arises from a long-standing dispute among owners of land flanking Pine County Ditch #1. Appellants petitioned the district court for a writ of mandamus directing the county to carry out an October 2001 repair order providing for the removal of beaver dams from the ditch. The county brought a motion for summary judgment, asserting that (1) mandamus was not an available remedy and (2) it is entitled to statutory immunity for its conduct with respect to the ditch. The district court granted summary judgment on both grounds, and we affirm.
= = = =
A07-1066

Aaron W. Klemmensen
Relator,

vs.

Cargill Financial Services Corp.,
Respondent,

Department of Employment and Economic Development,
Respondent.

SHUMAKER, Judge
In this certiorari appeal, relator challenges the unemployment law judge's determination that he was disqualified from receiving unemployment benefits because he committed employment misconduct by lying to his supervisors and falsifying records. We affirm.
= = = =
A07-1015

Charles W. Belcher, petitioner,
Appellant

vs.

Robert Fletcher,
Ramsey County Sheriff,
Respondent.

LANSING, Judge
Charles Belcher appeals from an order affirming the Ramsey County Sheriff's Office denial of Belcher's application for a permit to carry a pistol. Because the Ramsey County Sheriff's Office did not violate an expungement order when it considered evidence related to Belcher's 2003 arrest for criminal sexual conduct and because the evidence is sufficient to support the district court's determination, we affirm.
= = = =
A07-0956

In re the Matter of:

Thomas R. Kratz,
Appellant,

vs.

Kara Blum,
f/k/a Kara M. Day,
Respondent.

KALITOWSKI, Judge
Appellant-father Thomas R. Kratz argues that several of the district court's determinations regarding the parties' parenting-time modification requests constituted an abuse of the court's discretion. Specifically, appellant challenges (1) his monthly parenting-time award; (2) the decision to allow respondent-mother Kara Blum (f/k/a Kara M. Day) to take the child to Boy Scout activities during appellant's parenting time; (3) the calculation of summer-break parenting time; (4) the division of transportation costs; (5) Christmas-break parenting time and the inclusion of "travel days" within appellant's allotted parenting time; (6) the decision that the child will fly into the Minneapolis-St. Paul airport rather than Rochester; and (7) the decision to require a seven-day break between appellant's regular, monthly parenting time and any of appellant's holiday or summer-break parenting time. Appellant also requests that a new district court judge be assigned for any future proceedings, claiming that the district court judge is biased against him. We affirm.
= = = =
A07-0913

Paul Garding,
Respondent,

vs.

Kurt Doughman,
Appellant,

Michael Fox, et al.,
Defendants.

KALITOWSKI, Judge
Appellant Kurt Doughman argues that the district court (1) erred as a matter of law in granting respondent Paul Garding summary judgment on his adverse-possession claim; and (2) erred in awarding respondent attorney fees. We affirm the grant of summary judgment and reverse the award of attorney fees.
= = = =
A07-903

Craig Johanns, et al.,
Respondents,

vs.

Minnesota Mobile Storage Inc.,
Appellant.

ROSS, Judge
The dispute in this case arose after a self-storage company seized and then sold ,750 worth of a couple's possessions for ,305 after the couple missed their first three monthly payments of 6 in violation of their lease with the company. After a jury determined that Minnesota Mobile Storage, Inc., had violated the Minnesota Liens on Personal Property in Self-Storage Act, Minn. Stat. 514.970-.979 (2004), Minnesota Mobile appealed. This court remanded for the district court to decide the disputed factual issue of whether Minnesota Mobile's violation was willful so as to render unenforceable an exculpatory clause in the parties' lease agreement that would otherwise limit the company's damages to ,000. On remand, the district court did not allow additional evidence to be submitted to a new jury, and instead it conducted a bench trial based on record evidence. It found that Minnesota Mobile had willfully violated the law. In this second appeal, Minnesota Mobile argues that the district court disregarded the remand order and made its ruling regarding willfulness as a matter of law, that Minnesota Mobile did not waive its right to a jury trial, and that the district court erred by finding the statutory violations to have been willful. Because none of these arguments is persuasive, we affirm.
= = = =
A07-0882

Lisa M. Chapin,
Relator,

vs.

DA Strumstad and Associates, Inc.,
Respondent,

Department of Employment and Economic Development,
Respondent.

MINGE, Judge
Relator appeals her disqualification from unemployment insurance benefits by writ of certiorari, arguing that (1) she did not voluntarily terminate her employment; and (2) even if she did, she had "good cause" for doing so as a result of the office manager's offensive behavior. Because the unemployment law judge (ULJ) did not err in determining that relator quit without good cause, we affirm.
= = = =
A07-0879

Cynthia Marie Severson, petitioner,
Respondent,

vs.

Jason Albert Severson,
Appellant.

LANSING, Judge
In this appeal from judgment in a marital-dissolution action, Jason Severson challenges the district court's determination of the amount of maintenance, the division of credit-card debt, and the order for attorneys' fees. Because the district court properly applied the law, reasonably exercised its discretion, and relied on findings that were either supported by the record or incorporated by stipulation, we affirm.
= = = =
A07-0867

Illinois Farmers Insurance Company,
Respondent,

vs.

Donald Tischer, et al.,
Defendants,

Helen Feda, et al.,
Appellants.

SHUMAKER, Judge
Appellants challenge the district court's summary judgment in favor of respondent insurance company on the basis that the motor-vehicle exclusion in insured's homeowners insurance policy precludes appellants' recovery of insurance proceeds on their personal-injury claim arising out of a motor-vehicle accident. We affirm.
= = = =
A07-848

Richard Theusch, et al.,
Appellants,

vs.

Tad Berg, et al.,
Respondents.

WILLIS, Judge
In this appeal from a judgment in a bench trial, appellants argue that the district court erred by concluding that certain of their claims are time-barred and that the district court's computation of damages on another claim is not supported by the evidence and is the result of an error of law. By notice of review, respondents challenge the district court's award of damages. We affirm in part, reverse in part, and remand.
= = = =
A07-842

Aaron A. Argent,
Relator,

vs.

Enterprise Leasing Company (MN Corp),
Respondent,

Department of Employment and Economic Development,
Respondent.

WORKE, Judge
Relator challenges the decision by the unemployment-law judge that he quit his employment without a good reason caused by his employer and was disqualified from receiving unemployment benefits, arguing that he had good reason to quit because he was harassed and the workplace was hostile and unsafe. We affirm.
= = = =
A07-758

Rich Johnson Homes, Inc.,
Appellant,

vs.

Daniel Sheehan, et al.,
Respondents,

Wells Fargo Home Mortgage, Inc., et al.,
Defendants,

DayCo Concrete Company, Inc.,
Respondent,

Dave's Floor Sanding & Installing,
Respondent,

Tradesman International, Inc.,
Respondent,

Dakota County Lumber Co.,
Respondent.

WORKE, Judge
In this construction dispute, appellant argues that (1) the judgment is defective because it omits part of the parties' stipulation; (2) the district court erred by granting judgment in favor of subcontractors who did not appear at trial; (3) the district court improperly required clear and convincing evidence to prove oral changes to the contract; (4) the record shows that some changes were proven by clear and convincing evidence or were approved by respondent homeowners and the judgment is mathematically inconsistent; and (5) the district court erred in awarding respondent homeowners damages because the award includes storage and rent expenses when the homeowners chose to put their property in storage and rent a townhome while their home was under construction. We affirm.
= = = =
A07-726

City of Delano,
Appellant

vs.

Minnesota Office of the State Demographer,
within the Minnesota Department of Administration, et al.,
Respondents,

Minnesota Department of Transportation, et al.,
Respondents.

WORKE, Judge
Appellant challenges the district court's denial of a writ of mandamus that would force respondent demographer to certify the city's population, based on appellant's estimate, and force respondent MnDOT to allow the city to participate in the state-aid street fund, arguing that the court erred in holding a hearing prior to ruling on the petition and finding that the demographer's procedures are the exclusive method for determining population. We affirm.
= = = =
A07-0672

Pat Hart Fitzsimmons, petitioner,
Appellant,

vs.

Patricia Lee Fitzsimmons, n/k/a Patricia Lee Ellyson,
Respondent.

ROSS, Judge
This appeal arises from a district court order enforcing a pretrial order for payment of temporary spousal maintenance after the court entered a final decree of marital dissolution. Appellant Pat Fitzsimmons argues that the district court did not have subject-matter jurisdiction to enforce the pretrial order after final judgment had been entered. Because the pretrial order merged with the final order and the district court did not have subject-matter jurisdiction to enforce the pretrial order, we must reverse.
= = = =
A07-0651

Archer Daniels Midland Company,
Respondent,

vs.

C.A. Rose & Company, et al.,
Defendants,

Burwell Family Limited Partnership,
supplemental defendant and the garnishee,
Appellant.

MINGE, Judge
Appellant argues that the district court abused its discretion in denying its motion to reopen a default judgment pursuant to Minn. R. Civ. P. 60.02, that the default judgment was improperly entered, and that the entry of judgment violated a federal bankruptcy stay. Because retroactive relief had been granted from the from the bankruptcy stay, we deny the latter claim. However, because the district court should have reopened the default judgment pursuant to Minn. R. Civ. P. 60.02, we reverse and remand for further proceedings. We do not reach appellant's claims of procedural error.
= = = =
A07-0618

Lyon Financial Services, Inc.,
d/b/a USBancorp Manifest Funding Services
with its principal offices in Marshall, Minnesota,
Respondent,

vs.

Around the Clock Bail Bonds, Inc., a California corporation,
Defendant,

Albert Arzate,
Appellant.

ROSS, Judge
Albert Arzate appeals from a judgment entered against him after a bench trial for failure to make payments due to Lyon Financial Services, Inc., under a lease of vehicles. Arzate argues that the district court should have granted his motion for a continuance and that the district court's factual conclusions are erroneous. Because Arzate has not shown that the district court abused its discretion by denying his motion to continue or that the district court's factual determinations are clearly erroneous, we affirm.
= = = =
A07-0448

Jodi M. Zimmerman, petitioner,
Respondent,

vs.

Thomas M. Zimmerman,
Appellant.

ROSS, Judge
On appeal from the district court's denial of Thomas Zimmerman's motion to find Jodi Zimmerman in contempt of court for her failure to comply with the property-settlement portions of their divorce decree, Thomas Zimmerman argues that the district court abused its discretion when it denied his contempt motion and when it allegedly amended the divorce decree. Because we conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion regarding the contempt motion and it did not substantially alter the decree, we affirm.
= = = =
A07-0433

Mary Molstad,
Respondent,

vs.

Hovstone Properties Minnesota LLC,
a Delaware corporation successor in
merger to Town & Country Homes, Inc.,
Appellant.

HUDSON, Judge
In this real estate conveyance dispute, appellant-buyer Hovstone Properties challenges the district court's grant of summary judgment to respondent-seller Mary Molstad. The district court reasoned that, because buyer did not cancel the parties' purchase agreement by July 1, 2006, and did not make a 0,000 payment to seller required by the agreement, the unambiguous terms of the agreement entitled seller to the 0,000 payment. Buyer appeals arguing that the district court misread the agreement. We affirm.
= = = =
A07-0379

Cyrus R. McClain,
Relator,

vs.

Clarus Inc.,
Respondent,

Department of Employment and Economic Development,
Respondent.

PORITSKY, Judge
The unemployment law judge ("ULJ") determined that relator was disqualified from receiving unemployment benefits because relator had been discharged for misconduct for failing to follow instructions from his employer. Because the ULJ's credibility determination is not supported by the record, we reverse and remand.
= = = =
A07-0372

Gregory S. Crow
Relator,

vs.

Department of Employment and Economic Development,
Respondent.

LANSING, Judge
By writ of certiorari, Gregory Crow appeals an unemployment law judge's determination that Crow's weekly benefit amount under the unemployment-insurance statute is 3. Crow maintains that he is entitled to additional wage credits because his employer underpaid him for the hours that he worked in the second quarter of 2005. Because the unemployment benefits were properly based only on wages actually paid, we affirm.
= = = =
A07-0362

ERA Muske Real Estate Company,
Plaintiff,

vs.

Scott E. Gammon, et al.,
defendants and third party plaintiffs,
Appellants,

vs.

Carol J. Carlson,
third party defendant,
Respondent.

CRIPPEN, Judge
Appellants Scott and Susan Gammon challenge the district court's decision that the indemnity agreements they sought to enforce against respondent Carol Carlson had no consideration, were involuntary, and were the fruits of appellants' deceit. Because the record confirms the district court's determination on the absence of consideration, we affirm.
= = = =
A07-298

In the Matter of the Denial of Certain Relocation Benefits to
Steven J. Lang and Pamela S. Lang,
d/b/a Prospect Auto Parts,
Former Owners of 2565 Franklin Ave.,
St. Paul, Minnesota.

WORKE, Judge
On appeal in this relocation-benefits dispute, relator argues that the hearing officer erred in determining that (1) the documentation requirement imposed by respondent for reimbursement was reasonable, and (2) relator failed to show that he is entitled to recover moving expenses for personal property. 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.