| MINNEAPOLIS PERSONAL INJURY ATTORNEY |
|
|
 |
 |
 |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
UNPUBLISHED CIVIL OPINIONS FROM THE MINNESOTA COURT OF APPEALSA07-1663Jaime Fernandez, et al., Appellants, vs. Hilario Ortiz Vargas d/b/a Hills Construction, Respondent. MINGE, Judge Appellants challenge the dismissal of their statutory breach of warranty (Minn. Stat. § 327A.02 (2006)) and contract claims arising out of the construction of a house by respondent. The district court determined that service of the complaint initiating this action did not constitute the required notice of a statutory claim and that regardless of any deficiency in notice, appellants were not entitled to recover because: (1) they did not overcome respondent's defense that appellants' substantial work in building the house caused many complained-of defects; (2) there was no proof of damages of certain defects; and (3) appellants did not afford respondent an opportunity to repair the defects. We conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion in determining that appellants failed to establish that most alleged defects were attributable to respondent's faulty workmanship or that damages were not established. Accordingly, we affirm dismissal of most of the claims. However, we conclude that (1) the statutory complaint was adequate notice; (2) the record or district court findings establish that certain construction defects were caused by respondent and that damages were proven for those defects; and (3) there is not adequate record support for the finding that respondent was denied an opportunity to repair those defects. Accordingly, we reverse and remand for modification of the judgment to award damages for those defects. = = = = A07-1871 In the Marriage of: Erik Paul Adolphson, petitioner, Respondent, vs. Susan Kay Yourzak, Appellant. MINGE, Judge Appellant challenges a district court decision granting respondent joint legal custody of the parties' minor child, claiming that the district court failed to make all the findings required by Minn. Stat. § 518.17, subd. 2 (2006), or to provide the explanation required by the same statutory provision of how joint legal custody would be in the best interests of the child. Appellant further claims that the district court's finding regarding methods for resolving disputes over major life decisions are not supported by the record and that it erred in requiring appellant to mediate future child custody disputes. We affirm joint legal custody. We reverse the mediation requirement and remand. = = = = A07-1925 Stephen T. Baker, Relator, vs. American Legion, Respondent, Department of Employment and Economic Development, Respondent. SCHELLHAS, Judge Relator challenges the decision of the unemployment-law judge (ULJ) that relator was disqualified from receiving unemployment benefits because he quit his job without good reason caused by his employer. Because we determine that relator was not discharged from his employment, but quit for a reason caused by his own employment misconduct, we affirm. = = = = A07-2138 Southside Plumbing & Heating, Inc., Respondent, vs. Chris Plourde, et al., Appellants, Western Bank, et al., Defendants. ROSS, Judge On his second appeal from a district court judgment awarding attorney fees to Southside Plumbing & Heating, Inc., Chris Plourde argues again that the district court abused its discretion. He is correct. In his first appeal, we decided that the initial attorney-fee award of ,142.50 was unreasonable and disproportionate, and we remanded the case to the district court. On remand, the district court reduced the award by a mere 2.25. Because this de minimis reduction effectively shows a disregard of our determination that the initial fee award was unreasonable, we conclude that the district court failed to substantially comply with our remand instructions. We modify the district court's attorney-fee award and affirm. = = = = A08-0954 In the Matter of the Civil Commitment of: Brian Neil Sideen CONNOLLY, Judge Appellant challenges the decisions of the district court committing him as mentally ill pursuant to the Minnesota Commitment and Treatment Act and authorizing the involuntary administration of neuroleptic medication. Appellant contends that the district court's findings are clearly erroneous. Because the district court's findings are supported by clear and convincing evidence, 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. |
