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UNPUBLISHED CIVIL OPINIONS FROM THE MINNESOTA COURT OF APPEALS

A07-0854

Pauline Thomas,
Appellant,

vs.

City of Minneapolis Inspections Division,
Respondent.

COLLINS, Judge
Appellant Pauline Thomas challenges the district court's denial of her motion for a permanent injunction preventing the City of Minneapolis from towing several vehicles from her property. We affirm.


A07-0951


Richard Edward Olaf,
Appellant,

vs.

Theresa Kathryn Krisak,
Respondent.

TOUSSAINT, Chief Judge
Appellant Richard Edward Olaf challenges the district court's order dismissing with prejudice his complaint seeking to change the name of his minor son, arguing that the district court's findings of fact are clearly erroneous and that the district court abused its discretion in dismissing his complaint. Because we conclude that the district court did not have subject-matter jurisdiction over appellant's complaint, we affirm the district court's dismissal of appellant's complaint but modify the order to indicate that the dismissal is without prejudice.


A07-0973

Becky L. Benson,
Appellant,

vs.

Eric Sanders, et al.,
Respondents,
21st Century Bank, successor to the State Bank of Loretto,
Defendant,
First Magnus Financial Corp., an Arizona corporation,
Respondent,
EMC Mortgage Corporation, intervenor,
Respondent.

ROSS, Judge
This appeal requires us to decide whether the district court accurately deemed a financial transaction between Becky Benson and ELS Holdings to be a real-estate sale and repurchase, so that ELS now owns the home, or whether it was a mere refinancing device, so that Benson still owns the home. On appeal from a judgment in an action to quiet title, Becky Benson argues that the district court erred by failing to find that the transaction, which involved the purported sale and immediate repurchase of her home on a contract for deed, created an equitable mortgage. She also argues that, because of this error, the district court also erred by concluding that the settlement agreement and quitclaim deed that resulted from her breach of the contract for deed were valid and that First Magnus Financial Corporation is a good-faith mortgagee. Because the record supports the district court's finding that Benson and ELS agreed to a sale and repurchase and did not intend to enter into a loan transaction, we affirm the district court's conclusion that the transaction did not create an equitable mortgage.


A07-1088

James M. Hoye,
Relator,

vs.

Automotion of Maplewood Inc.,
Respondent,

Department of Employment and Economic Development,
Respondent.

WRIGHT, Judge
Relator challenges the unemployment law judge's determination that relator is disqualified from receiving unemployment benefits because he was discharged from his employment for employment misconduct. We affirm.


A07-1160


Barry LeDoux,
Respondent,

vs.

St. Louis County (Public Works Department),
Appellant.

TOUSSAINT, Chief Judge
Appellant St. Louis County (Public Works Department) challenges the district court's vacation of the decision of the St. Louis County Veteran's Preference Review Board (the review board) to terminate the employment of respondent Barry LeDoux, arguing that respondent was not deprived of a fair hearing by one review board member's undisclosed contacts with the county and with a witness. Because we conclude that the review board member's personal, financial, and confidential relationships with the county and a witness created the appearance of a conflict of interest and that the failure to disclose those relationships to respondent created an impression of bias, we affirm.


A07-1169

In re the Matter of:

Michael Alexander Mikhail, petitioner,
Respondent,

vs.

Salma Ghanem Mikhail,
Appellant.

KALITOWSKI, Judge
On appeal from the district court's grant of a harassment restraining order, appellant Salma Ghanem Mikhail argues that the record lacks the required evidence of repeated incidents of intrusive or unwanted acts. We affirm.


A07-1355

In re: The Matter of the Recommendation for Discharge of
Francis M. Nelson, Police Officer, Minneapolis Police Department.

SHUMAKER, Judge
The City of Minneapolis terminated relator from his job as a police officer and the Minneapolis Civil Service Commission sustained the termination. In this certiorari review, we must determine whether irregularities in the process and procedures leading to relator's termination and in the commission's action require a reversal.


A07-1404

In re the Marriage of:
Betty Jean Erlandsen, petitioner,
Respondent,

vs.

Stanley L. Erlandsen,
Appellant.

STONEBURNER, Judge
Appellant, the estate of respondent's deceased former husband, challenges the district court order holding that the dissolution judgment effectively extended husband's maintenance obligation to respondent beyond his death. Alternatively, appellant asserts that if there is an ongoing maintenance obligation, it is subject to modification. Because the judgment provided that the obligor's post-death maintenance obligation consisted of security providing for payments of defined amounts from defined sources, and because this is not a proper case for modification of an extension of maintenance beyond the obligor's death, we affirm.


A07-1549

In re the Marriage of: Debra Ellen Lester, f/k/a Leadens, petitioner,
Appellant,

vs.

Dale Theodore Leadens,
Respondent.

SCHELLHAS, Judge
Appellant challenges a district court order modifying her award of permanent spousal maintenance. She argues that the district court incorrectly found that respondent's income and appellant's expenses had decreased and, accordingly, incorrectly found changed circumstances. Appellant also challenges the district court's denial of attorney fees. We agree that the district court erred in finding that respondent's income and appellant's expenses decreased and reverse the district court's modification of spousal maintenance. We affirm the district court's denial of attorney fees and deny appellant's motion for attorney fees on appeal.


A07-1556

Tollefson Development, Inc.,
Appellant,

vs.

The Estate of James McCarthy,
Respondent.

WILLIS, Judge
Appellant challenges the district court's refusal to grant specific performance of a real-estate purchase agreement, arguing that the district court (1) applied the incorrect standard of proof, (2) clearly erred by finding the purchase agreement to be fatally indefinite; and (3) improperly reviewed the agreement for overreaching and lack of mutuality of remedy. Because we conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion, we affirm.


A07-1600

Continental Property Group, Inc., petitioner,
Appellant,

vs.

Hassan Township,
Respondent.

KLAPHAKE, Judge
In this variance dispute, appellant Continental Property Group, Inc. challenges the district court's grant of summary judgment in favor of respondent Hassan Township. Appellant argues that respondent wrongfully denied appellant's application for a variance to allow it to build an office/warehouse that would encroach on the minimum side setbacks established by respondent's ordinance. Appellant also argues that respondent's failure to preserve a verbatim record of the variance proceedings precludes summary judgment in respondent's favor. Because appellant did not meet the requirements necessary to show undue hardship and because the record is sufficient to allow review, we affirm.


A07-1655

In re the Matter of:
Olivia Jassah Cassell, petitioner,
Respondent,

vs.

Gabriel B. Cassell,
Appellant.

HUDSON, Judge
On appeal from the district court's decision to reopen the parties' foreign dissolution judgment, pro se appellant-husband argues (a) the district court should not have adopted respondent-wife's proposed findings of fact; (b) Minnesota courts lack subject-matter jurisdiction to reopen the foreign dissolution judgment, should not have reopened the judgment sua sponte, and should not have added provisions to the judgment; (c) the record does not support the determination that the judgment was based on fraud; (d) the discharge of the guardian ad litem (GAL) before the GAL completed her statutory duties deprived husband of due process of law; (e) the district court improperly refused to consider father's motion and affidavit regarding custody and parenting time, and its decisions on those issues were not supported by the record; (f) the custody and parenting time decisions deprived father of due process of law; (g) his parenting time should not have been supervised; (h) the district court abused its discretion in awarding mother attorney fees; (i) his motion for amended findings of fact should not have been denied; (j) the district court abused its discretion in setting father's current support obligation and ordering retroactive support. We affirm in part, reverse in part, and remand.


A08-0211

In the Matter of the Welfare
of the Children of:
T.R.K. and D.A., Parents.

KLAPHAKE, Judge
This case concerns whether the events surrounding the in-home death of four-month-old K.K. can support a CHIPS adjudication as to her siblings, D.A. and D.T.A., who were three and six years old at the time of K.K.'s death. The district court dismissed respondent Rice County's CHIPS petition following a trial, and the guardian ad litem challenges that ruling in this appeal. Because the district court's findings on the statutory criteria are not supported by substantial evidence and therefore do not support its decision to dismiss the CHIPS petition, we reverse and remand.
 

 
 
 

  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.