| MINNEAPOLIS PERSONAL INJURY ATTORNEY |
|
|
 |
 |
 |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
UNPUBLISHED CIVIL OPINIONS FROM THE MINNESOTA COURT OF APPEALSA07-1701Enterprise Communications Inc., Relator, vs. Nancy D. Garrison, Respondent, Department of Employment and Economic Development, Respondent. BJORKMAN, Judge Relator-employer brings a certiorari appeal from an unemployment-law judge's (ULJ) determination that respondent unemployment-benefit applicant was actively seeking suitable employment during her unemployment-benefit period. Because the ULJ's decision is supported by substantial evidence in the record, we affirm. = = = = A07-1748 Steven L. Thornberg, Appellant, vs. Alan Witt, Respondent, Debra Witt, Respondent. WORKE, Judge On appeal in this real-estate-related dispute, appellant argues that (1) the conciliation court erred in ruling on an issue that was not properly before the court; (2) the district court erred by not reversing the conciliation court's award to respondents; and (3) the record does not support the district court's determination regarding certain personal property. Because appellant failed to raise the first two issues in district court, we affirm the district court's ruling on those issues. But because the record does not support the district court's conclusion regarding certain personal property, we reverse on that issue. = = = = A07-1807 Ceqethia M. Chatman, Relator, vs. Speedway SuperAmerica LLC, Respondent, Department of Employment and Economic Development, Respondent. ROSS, Judge Relator Ceqethia Chatman appeals from an unemployment law judge's (ULJ) determination that she is disqualified from receiving unemployment benefits because she quit her employment with Speedway SuperAmerica, LLC. Chatman argues that she did not quit or, in the alternative, that she quit for good reason caused by SuperAmerica, contending that a recently enacted statutory provision that grants unemployment benefits to an employee who quits because of loss of childcare should have retroactive effect. Because the ULJ correctly found that Chatman quit employment, and because the statute does not apply to this case, we affirm. = = = = A07-1832 The Business Bank, Respondent, vs. Kevin C. Hanson, et al., Appellants, Option One Mortgage Corporation, Respondent, The United States of America, Defendant. JOHNSON, Judge Business Bank sought to enforce a guaranty agreement signed by Kevin Hanson and to foreclose on a mortgage on Hanson's home. Hanson defended against Business Bank's breach-of-contract action by alleging that he was fraudulently induced to sign the guaranty agreement. Hanson also alleged that Business Bank wrongfully denied him access to the bank account of the borrower whose debt he had guaranteed. Option One, which has another mortgage on Hanson's home, defended against Business Bank's foreclosure action by arguing that its subsequently recorded mortgage has priority over Business Bank's mortgage because Business Bank's mortgage does not comply with a statutory requirement that a registered mortgage state the total amount of the mortgagor's debt to the mortgagee. The district court entered summary judgment for Business Bank with respect to both Hanson and Option One. We conclude, however, that there are genuine issues of material fact concerning Hanson's claim of fraudulent inducement, although we affirm the district court's grant of summary judgment to Business Bank on Hanson's allegations concerning access to a borrower's bank account. We also conclude that Business Bank's mortgage does not comply with the applicable statute and, thus, is invalid. Therefore, we affirm in part, reverse in part, and remand. = = = = A07-1866 Steven Brua, et al., Respondents, vs. The Minnesota Joint Underwriting Association, Appellant. KLAPHAKE, Judge Appellant Minnesota Joint Underwriting Association (MJUA) challenges the district court's grant of summary judgment in favor of respondents, the Brua family, in a declaratory judgment action seeking to determine whether it was lawful for MJUA to include pecuniary loss damages within the definition of bodily injury coverage in its dram shop liability policy. In 2003, Michael Brua died in a one-car accident after patronizing the Bend in the Road Bar in Manchester, which was owned by Mark and Joette Burton and insured by MJUA. The parties settled the ensuing dram shop action, with MJUA agreeing to pay the Bruas a minimum of 0,000 and a maximum of 0,000 for pecuniary loss and ,000 for property damage. The parties agreed to initiate a declaratory judgment action to determine whether the policy effectively limited coverage for pecuniary loss to 0,000 by including it within the definition of "bodily injury." The district court held that MJUA's provisions related to pecuniary loss were void and unenforceable. We agree and affirm. = = = = A07-1918, A07-1930 Moorhead Economic Development Authority, petitioner, Respondent, vs. Roger W. Anda, et al., Appellants, Kjos Investments, Respondent Below (A07-1930 KLAPHAKE, Judge This consolidated appeal involves a condemnation action and a claim for liability resulting from contamination of properties adjacent to the condemned parcel. Appellant Roger W. Anda, owner of the condemned property, challenges (1) the district court's jury instruction regarding valuation; (2) the jury's special verdict on valuation of the condemned property; and (3) liability for contamination to the neighboring properties. Appellant further alleges that the court abused its discretion by denying his motion for a new trial because of bias. Because the record supports the court's jury instruction and the jury's special verdict and because we observe no evidence of bias, we affirm. = = = = A07-1969 Lois Minch, Personal Representative of the Estate of A. R. Minch, deceased, Appellant, vs. Buffalo-Red River Watershed District, Respondent. WORKE, Judge Following a remand from this court in this ditch-law dispute, appellant argues that (1) the district court abused its discretion in denying the motion for attorney fees and costs based on an erroneous finding that there was no "prevailing party," and (2) the procedural history of the case precludes the reinstatement of a previously vacated judgment for costs, We affirm the district court's denial of appellant's motion for attorney fees and costs and reverse the district court's reinstatement of the ,932 cost judgment. = = = = A07-2075 Charlene Moran, et al., Appellants, vs. Henry Buchwald, M. D., Respondent, Andy C. Chiou, M. D., Respondent. STAUBER, Judge On appeal in this medical-malpractice action, appellant argues that the district court erred in granting respondents' motion for summary judgment on the basis that appellant's claim was barred by the applicable statute of limitations. Because appellant suffered some actionable injury at the time of the alleged negligent act, her claim is barred by the statute of limitations, and we affirm. = = = = A07-2083 Barry E. Smith, Relator, vs. FedEx Kinkos Office and Print Services Inc., Respondent, Department of Employment and Economic Development, Respondent. HUDSON, Judge Relator challenges the decision by the unemployment law judge (ULJ) that he was disqualified from receiving unemployment benefits because he had been discharged for misconduct after trying to obtain an unauthorized discount from a corporation with which his employer did business. Because the ULJ did not err in ruling that this was a single incident that had a significant adverse impact on the employer, we affirm. = = = = A08-0538 A08-0955 In re the Marriage of: Daniel Lorenz McKinnon, petitioner, Respondent, vs. Rebecca Illingworth McKinnon, Appellant. STONEBURNER, Judge In these consolidated appeals,1 appellant-mother asserts that (1) the district court's exclusion of evidence as a sanction for the parties' discovery-order violations was an abuse of discretion, violated due process, and denied her a fair trial; (2) the district court abused its discretion in denying her motion for a new trial; and (3) if a new trial is not granted, custody-related findings should be modified. We affirm. = = = = A08-898 In the Matter of the Civil Commitment of: David Kendall Renz. WORKE, Judge On appeal from his commitment as mentally ill and dangerous, appellant argues that commitment as mentally ill is a better fit because there is no clear and convincing evidence that he engaged in an overt act causing or attempting to cause serious physical harm to another and there is not a substantial likelihood that he will engage in acts capable of inflicting serious physical harm. We affirm. = = = = A07-2210 Twin City Custom Cycles, Inc., Appellant, vs. Donn Proudfoot, d/b/a TMC Acquisitions Inc., LLC, d/b/a Titan Motorcycle Co. of America, d/b/a TMC Acquisitions, LLC, Respondent, and TMC Acquisitions, LLC, d/b/a Titan Motorcycle Co. of America, counterclaim plaintiff, Respondent, vs. Twin City Custom Cycles, Inc., counterclaim defendant, Appellant, and Twin City Custom Cycles, Inc., Appellant, vs. TMC Acquisition, LLC, Respondent. JOHNSON, Judge Twin City Custom Cycles, Inc. (TCCC) entered into a dealer sales and service agreement with TMC Acquisition, LLC (TMC), which was incorrectly identified in the agreement as "TMC Acquisitions Inc. LLC." Don Proudfoot, the president of TMC, signed the agreement. TCCC later sued Proudfoot, alleging breach of contract. Proudfoot moved to dismiss the complaint on the ground that he is not a party to the agreement. The district court granted Proudfoot's motion. On appeal, TCCC argues that Proudfoot is liable for any breach of the agreement because, even though he may have been an agent of TMC, he did not properly disclose his agency and identify his principal. We conclude that the agency and the identity of the principal were sufficiently disclosed and, therefore, 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. |
