| THE SAINT PAUL PERSONAL INJURY ATTORNEY |
|
|
 |
 |
 |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
UNPUBLISHED CIVIL OPINIONS FROM THE MINNESOTA COURT OF APPEALSSouthwood Motors,Relator, vs. Department of Employment and Economic Development, Respondent. TOUSSAINT, Chief Judge Relator Southwood Motors, a business that purchases used vehicles at auctions in the Twin Cities area and resells them in the St. Cloud area, challenges the decision of the unemployment law judge (ULJ) that the individuals who drive the vehicles from the auction lots to relator's lot are employees rather than independent contractors. Because we conclude from the undisputed facts that no employment relationship exists between the individuals and relator, we reverse. = = = = A05-2063 Andrew Wurtzberger, Respondent, vs. Roger Heidelberger, Appellant, and Roger Heidelberger, Plaintiff, vs. Andrew Wurtzberger, Defendant. USSAINT, Chief Judge On appeal from a judgment and an order denying posttrial motions, Roger Heidelberger challenges the district court's decision that he breached provisions of a purchase agreement and owed respondent Andrew Wurtzberger damages. Because the district court did not err when it determined that appellant breached the agreement and respondent had not waived its enforcement, did not clearly err in its findings of fact, and properly considered an issue tried by consent, we affirm. = = = = A05-1634 Thomas Hines, et al., Respondents, vs. Aandahl Construction Co., LLC, Defendant, Metropolitan Painting Associates, Appellant. TOUSSAINT, Chief Judge Respondents Thomas C. and Mary Lou Hines brought this action against appellant Metropolitan Painting Associates for the negligent hiring of a painter whose accomplices robbed and assaulted the Hineses in their home. Metropolitan challenges the judgment and the denial of its posttrial motions. Because we conclude that Metropolitan owed a duty as a matter of law to the Hineses, because the damage award was not manifestly contrary to the evidence, and because we see no abuse of discretion in the admission of testimony from the Hinses' expert witness, we affirm. = = = = A06-308 In the Matter of the Welfare of the Children of: M.A.C., T.M.M., and S.C., Parents. KLAPHAKE, Judge Appellants M.C. and S.C. challenge the district court's termination of their parental rights to their one-year-old daughter. Appellant M.C. also challenges the termination of her parental rights to her five- and seven-year-old daughters from her previous marriage. Appellants argue that the district court improperly required them to proceed without counsel, failed to follow the requirements of the Indian Child Welfare Act, and terminated their parental rights without sufficient evidence. Because substantial evidence supports the termination of M.C.'s parental rights and because appellants presented only vague allegations regarding S.C.'s Indian ancestry, we affirm in part. But because we conclude that the district court abused its discretion in failing to arrange for counsel when S.C. indicated his inability to employ counsel or to proceed to trial without counsel, we reverse the decision to terminate S.C.'s parental rights and remand. = = = = A05-2321 In re the Marriage of: Michael Nicolai Ohnstad, petitioner, Appellant, vs. Leilani L. Ohnstad, Respondent, and County of Rice, intervenor, Respondent KLAPHAKE, Judge Michael Ohnstad appeals pro se from a decision issued by a child support magistrate suspending his driver's license for nonpayment of child support arrears under Minn. Stat. ? 518.551, subd. 13 (2004). He argues that he has no ongoing child support obligation because his children are emancipated and that intervenor County of Rice has failed to fully credit him for payments he made since his child support was set in 1999. Appellant further argues that due to his medical problems, he is unable to work and lacks the ability to pay child support. Appellant's ex-wife, respondent Leilani Ohnstad, has not filed a brief in this matter. Because the magistrate failed to consider whether the payment agreement proposed by the county was reasonable and tailored to appellant's individual financial circumstances, as required by Minn. Stat. ? 518.553 (2004), we reverse and remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. = = = = A05-2082 Kimberly Kay Dipprey, petitioner, Appellant, vs. Andrew Douglas Lotter, Respondent. KLAPHAKE, Judge Appellant Kimberly Kay Dipprey claims that the district court erred in determining the custody of her child, B.E.L., and abused its discretion in finding that she consented to B.E.L.'s continued primary residence with his father, respondent Andrew Douglas Lotter. Because the district court's custody determination is supported by the findings and the record evidence supports those findings, we affirm. = = = = A05-2047 Terrence Hanson, Relator, vs. County of Carver Board of Commissioners, Respondent. KLAPHAKE, Judge Relator Terrance Hanson challenges a decision by respondent County of Carver Board of Commissioners (the board) denying his application for a conditional use permit (CUP) to permit him to expand his existing gravel mine operations. Relator argues that the board acted arbitrarily in denying his CUP because it met county zoning standards. An amicus curiae brief in support of the county's decision to deny the CUP has been filed by San Francisco Township. Because the record supports four of the five findings issued by the board to deny the CUP, we affirm. = = = = A05-2114 Aitkin County Health and Human Services, Respondent, Cindy Kaye James, Respondent, vs. Guy Chilton Smith, Appellant. SHUMAKER, Judge Appellant challenges the district court's order affirming a child-support magistrate's determination of appellant's past and current support obligation, arguing that the magistrate improperly considered capital gains in setting the support amount and improperly calculated his monthly income. We reverse and remand. = == = = A05-2512 Stanley Ralph Herman, petitioner, Respondent, vs. Sharon Diane Herman, n/k/a Sharon Diane Haneman, Appellant. BROOKS, Judge Appellant challenges the district court's order affirming the family court referee's denial of her motion to modify spousal maintenance. Appellant argues that the maintenance award is unreasonable and unfair under Minn. Stat. ? 518.64 (2004) because both respondent's income and her needs have substantially increased, and, therefore, the district court abused its discretion by denying her motion. Because we conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion, we affirm. = = = = A05-2388 In re the Marriage of: Larry J. Hoffer, petitioner, Appellant, vs. Joni L. Moyer, f/k/a Hoffer, Respondent. HALBROOKS, Judge On appeal from the district court's denial of appellant's motion to increase his parenting time, appellant argues that the district court failed to consider the children's best interests, that he was denied due process and equal protection of the law, that the district court should have appointed a guardian ad litem, and that the district court erred by failing to order mediation of the parties' disputes. We affirm. = = = = A05-2477 Stanley Thomas Olson, as Personal Representative of the Estate of Violet Pilgrim, Appellant, vs. Irving Bird, individually and as Personal Representative of the Estate of Richard Bird, et al., Respondents. STONEBURNER, Judge Appellant challenges the district court's judgment for respondents on appellant's decedent's unjust-enrichment claim against the estate and siblings of respondents' decedent. Because appellant failed to prove unjust enrichment, we affirm. = = = == A05-2262 In re: Estate of Willard P. Johnson a/k/a Paul Willard Johnson, Deceased. STONEBURNER, Judge Appellants challenge admission of decedent's 2004 will to probate, arguing that the district court's finding that decedent possessed testamentary capacity when the will was executed was clearly erroneous. Because the record supports the district court's finding of testamentary capacity, we affirm. = = = = A05-2042 Linda S. S. de Beer, d/b/a/ de Beer & Associates, P.A., Respondent, vs. Christine Callahan, Appellant. STONEBURNER, Judge Appellant challenges the district court's judgment for attorney fees, arguing that respondent's withdrawal from representation violated Minn. R. Prof. Conduct 1.4, relieving appellant of the obligation to pay attorney fees that were outstanding at the time respondent withdrew from representation. Appellant also argues that the award of collection costs and attorney fees was excessive. We affirm. == = = = A05-1956 The Estate of: Theodore B. Nistler, Decedent MINGE, Judge Appellant challenges the district court's order and judgment allowing the respondent-county's claim for medical assistance against his father's estate. Because this court previously determined that appellant did not timely appeal the district court's order allowing the county's claim, that issue has already been resolved adversely to appellant and is not properly before us. Because appellant similarly did not timely appeal the district court's unjust-enrichment ruling, this court lacks jurisdiction to reach that issue. Because the administration of the estate is incomplete, because no claims (other than the county's medical assistance claim) have been made and some may not be made until the administration of the estate progresses, and because the district court has not properly ruled on such matters, we do not decide issues regarding expenses of administration and claims by or against the estate (except to conclude that such claims are not time-barred until they can be made) and we remand. We deny the county's motion to strike portions of appellant's brief. = = = = A05-2311 Angela M. Wigfield, Relator, vs. US Federal Employees, Respondent, Department of Employment and Economic Development, Respondent. HUDSON, Judge Relator Angela Wigfield challenges the decision by the unemployment-law judge (ULJ) affirming his decision that relator was disqualified from receiving unemployment benefits because she had been discharged for misconduct. Relator argues that she provided medical documentation of her illness, that she was physically unable to work on the days she missed, and that she was subject to discrimination. Because the evidence reasonably tends to sustain the ULJ's decision, we affirm. = = = == A05-2303 Neil J. Cotton, Relator, vs. Laundry World MN, LLC, Respondent, Department of Employment and Economic Development, Respondent. HUDSON, Judge Relator challenges the decision by the unemployment-law judge (ULJ) that he committed misconduct, contending that (a) the employer's evidence was mostly hearsay, there was a "surprise" witness, and the ULJ improperly refused to reopen the hearing to receive rebuttal evidence that corroborated relator's credibility; (b) the ULJ's credibility determinations are not supported by the evidence; and (c) the decision is not supported by substantial evidence and the record showed at most unsatisfactory conduct or poor performance. Because the ULJ conducted the hearing properly and provided ample reasoning for and otherwise supported his/her credibility determinations, and because relator's repeatedly rude conduct toward customers constituted employment misconduct, we affirm. = = = = A05-2263 In re the Marriage of: Keum Ja Kim, petitioner, Appellant, vs. Youn H. Kim, Respondent. HUDSON, Judge On appeal from the district court's ruling in post-judgment dissolution proceedings, appellant argues that the district court improperly modified a provision of the parties' stipulated property distribution regarding sale of the house and the disposition of the proceeds of the sale of the house. Because we conclude that the provision is ambiguous and that the district court properly interpreted the provision, we affirm. = = = = A05-2128 A05-2379 Aircraft Mechanics Fraternal Association Members, Relators (A05-2128), Respondents (A05-2379), vs. Northwest Airlines, Inc., Respondent (A05-2128), Relator (A05-2379), Department of Employment and Economic Development, Respondent. HUDSON, Judge In these consolidated appeals, striking member technicians and inspectors challenge the decision by the unemployment-law judge (ULJ) affirming his earlier decision that they were disqualified from receiving unemployment benefits. The ULJ determined that a 25% pay reduction was insufficient to constitute a constructive lockout, under which the technicians and inspectors would have qualified for benefits. The employer, Northwest Airlines, Inc. challenges the decision by the ULJ affirming his earlier decision that the striking Aircraft Mechanics Fraternal Association cleaners and custodians were qualified to receive unemployment benefits, determining that a 25% pay reduction constituted a lockout as to the cleaners and custodians. Because we conclude that, under Sunstar Foods, Inc. v. Uhlendorf,310 N.W.2d 80 (Minn. 1981), the 25% pay cuts imposed on both the technicians and inspectors, as well as the cleaners and custodians, constituted a constructive lockout so as to entitle both groups to unemployment benefits, we affirm the ULJ's decision with regard to the cleaners and custodians, but we reverse the ULJ's decision with regard to the technicians and inspectors. = = = = A05-2472 Russell Trenholme, Respondent, vs. QRS Diagnostic, LLC, et al., Appellants. T, Judge In this appeal after a bench trial, appellants challenge the district court's determination that they committed fraudulent or intentional misrepresentation by omission, arguing that (1) they did not have a duty to disclose certain financial information to respondent; (2) the record does not support the finding that respondent reasonably relied on appellants' failure to disclose certain financial obligations; and (3) respondent is not entitled to damages for omission of the financial information. We affirm. = = = = A05-2534 Rose Pelzel, Relator, vs. St. Paul Office of License, Inspections and Environmental Protection, Respondent. PARKER, Judge Relator Rose Pelzel is the owner of a Labrador retriever named Rory that was labeled a potentially dangerous animal under Saint Paul, Minn., Legislative Code ? 200.11(a)(1), after he bit two children while running at large.[1] Shortly after that attack, Rory bit Rosalia Portillo, again while he was running at large. The respondent City of Saint Paul Office of License, Inspection and Environmental Protection determined that Rory was a dangerous animal[2] under Saint Paul, Minn., Legislative Code ? 200.11(a)(1). Pelzel brought this appeal by writ of certiorari, contending that (a) the evidence fails to support the dangerous dog designation under Saint Paul, Minn., Legislative Code ? 200.12; and (b) the determination that the dog was running at large was erroneous. We affirm. = = = A05-2437 Steven Iverson, Appellant, vs. Hubbard Broadcasting, Inc., d/b/a KSTP-TV, Respondent. FORSBERG, Judge On appeal in this defamation action, appellant argues that because genuine issues of material fact exist, the district court erred by entering summary judgment. Because appellant cannot prove that respondent published a false statement, and a false statement is an essential element of a defamation claim, we affirm. = = = = A05-2194 In re the Marriage of: Kelli Marie Anderson, petitioner, Respondent, vs. Jeffrey Lynn Anderson, Appellant. STONEBURNER, Judge In this dissolution matter, appellant challenges the district court's determination that the increase in his investment account was marital rather than non-marital property and the determination that appellant depleted funds from a joint savings account. Because the record supports the district court's determination that the increase in the investment account was marital, we affirm in part. Because the record does not support the district court's conclusion that appellant depleted funds from the savings account, we reverse in part. |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 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 Lawyer 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. |
