| MINNEAPOLIS PERSONAL INJURY ATTORNEY |
|
|
 |
 |
 |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
UNPUBLISHED CIVIL OPINIONS FROM THE MINNESOTA COURT OF APPEALSA07-1222Scott County Housing and Redevelopment Authority, Respondent, vs. Alexis Phongsavat, Appellant. TOUSSAINT, Chief Judge Appellant Alexis Phongsavat challenges the district court judgment evicting her from public housing. Because the district court's factual findings were not clearly erroneous and supported its decision to evict appellant, we affirm. = = = = A07-1411 Rodney W. Steele, Appellant, vs. American National Property and Casualty Company, Respondent. MINGE, Judge Appellant challenges the denial of his motion for summary judgment and the entry of summary judgment in favor of respondent insurance company on appellant's claim for underinsured-motorist benefits. Because we conclude that allowing appellant passenger to collect underinsured-motorist benefits under the negligent driver's insurance policy would convert the first-party coverage in that policy into third-party liability coverage in violation of the terms of the policy, we affirm. = = = = A07-1529 Hawkins, Inc., et al., Appellants, vs. American International Specialty Lines Insurance Company, Respondent. COLLINS, Judge On appeal from a grant of summary judgment in favor of respondent-insurer, appellants-insureds argue that the district court erred by ruling that Minnesota law governed their claims alleging that respondent breached its contractual obligations under two insurance policies, and granting respondent summary judgment on those claims. We affirm. = = = = A07-1623 In re the Marriage of: Michelle Popel, petitioner, Respondent, vs. Alexei Popel, Appellant. HALBROOKS, Judge Appellant Alexei Popel challenges the judgment dissolving his marriage to respondent Michelle Popel, arguing that the district court abused its discretion when it (1) awarded the parties joint physical custody of their child; (2) considered his pension payments when finding his net monthly income for child-support purposes; (3) denied his motion for child-support arrearages; and (4) determined respondent's nonmarital interest in the marital home. Because we conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion in its award of joint physical custody and denial of arrearages to appellant, we affirm on those issues. But because we conclude that the district court failed to make the findings necessary to support its deviation from the child-support guidelines and that the basis for its calculation of respondent's nonmarital interest in the marital home is unclear, we reverse and remand those issues. = = = = A07-1741 In the Matter of the Claim for Benefits by Steven P. Andersen ROSS, Judge This appeal concerns the denial of a retiree's continued health-insurance coverage after the Public Employees Retirement Association previously determined that he qualified for duty-related disability benefits. Steven Andersen challenges the Public Safety Officers Benefit Eligibility Panel decision that the circumstances of his back injuries do not qualify him for continued health-insurance benefits. Andersen also challenges the denial of his request for reconsideration. Because the panel's decision fails to articulate findings of fact sufficient to allow meaningful appellate review, we reverse and remand. = = = = A07-2048 In re the Marriage of: Valerie A. Blaeser, f/k/a Valerie A. Fiscus, petitioner, Respondent, vs. Larry D. Fiscus, Appellant, and County of Dakota, intervenor, Respondent. HALBROOKS, Judge Appellant challenges the district court's denial of his motion to modify his child-support obligation on the grounds that the district court (1) applied the incorrect statute in denying his motion and (2) abused its discretion by refusing to modify his child-support obligation following the emancipation of his oldest child. We affirm. = = = = A07-1980 In re the Marriage of: Mary Clare Murphy, petitioner, Appellant, vs. Jack Frederick Murphy, Respondent. HALBROOKS, Judge Appellant argues that the district court abused its discretion by failing to make findings to support what she characterizes as an unequal property division in the judgment and decree.1 We affirm. = = = = A07-2342 Unitrin/Kemper Insurance Company, Appellant, vs. Mark D. Roerick, Respondent. KLAPHAKE, Judge Appellant Unitrin/Kemper Insurance Company challenges the district court's dismissal of its claim against respondent Mark D. Roerick for reimbursement of expenses for chiropractic services that respondent allegedly misrepresented that he provided to appellant's insured, Susan Struchen, after she was injured in an automobile accident. Appellant's conciliation court claim was dismissed with prejudice, and it appealed to the district court. The district court concluded that the issue was decided in a prior no-fault insurance arbitration involving appellant and Struchen, and it dismissed the claim against respondent on the basis of res judicata. Appellant claims that the district court erred by sua sponte dismissing its claim. Because the district court considered evidence outside of the pleadings, we construe the district court's ruling as a grant of summary judgment. Because we conclude that the district court erred in granting summary judgment when the record did not support that the prior proceedings had collateral estoppel effect, we reverse. = = = = A08-0179 Brandon Eugene Kubis, Respondent, vs. 2002 Chevrolet Pickup, VIN #1GCHK29W12E222285, Appellant. JOHNSON, Judge Brandon Eugene Kubis's uncle was arrested for driving Kubis's pickup truck while impaired. After the county seized the truck and sought its forfeiture, Kubis filed an action in the district court seeking its return. The district court found that Kubis satisfied the "innocent owner" defense to forfeiture and, thus, ordered the county to return the truck to Kubis. The county appeals. We conclude that the district court's findings of fact are not clearly erroneous and that the findings support the district court's conclusions of law and, therefore, affirm. = = = = A08-0449 In the Matter of the Welfare of the Children of: S. B. and J. W. B., Parents. WORKE, Judge Appellant-mother challenges the district court's termination of her parental rights, arguing that the evidence does not support the statutory bases upon which the court relied and that the evidence is insufficient to support the court's conclusion that the termination is in the best interests of the children. 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. |
