| THE SAINT PAUL PERSONAL INJURY ATTORNEY |
|
|
 |
 |
 |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
UNPUBLISHED CIVIL OPINIONS FROM THE MINNESOTA COURT OF APPEALSIn re the Marriage of:Susan F. Morter, n/k/a Susan F. Ablan, petitioner, Respondent, vs. David M. Morter, Appellant. LANSING, Judge In this appeal from an order and judgment in a child-support proceeding, David Morter challenges the district court's findings on the amount of his child-support obligation and the computation of attorneys' fees. Because the district court did not abuse its discretion in determining the child-support obligation, we affirm that part of the order. But because the findings on attorneys' fees do not provide a sufficient basis for the attorneys' fees judgment, we reverse and remand for additional findings. = = = = A05-2068 In re the Marriage of: Tue Moua, petitioner, Appellant, vs. Naocha Yang, Respondent. KALITOWSKI, Judge Appellant Tue Moua challenges the district court's decision to grant respondent Naocha Yang sole legal and sole physical custody of the parties' child, C.Y., arguing that the district court abused its discretion by (1) modifying the previous custody order; and (2) allowing the guardian ad litem to testify. We affirm. = = = = A05-2103 Rozlon Thomas, Appellant, vs. Minneapolis Public School District, Respondent. PETERSON, Judge In this appeal from an order dismissing her complaint against respondent Minneapolis Public School District, pro se appellant Rozlon Thomas argues that she was denied due process. Because the district court did not err in concluding that appellant filed her complaint after the applicable statute of limitations had run, we affirm. = = = = A05-1898 A05-1972 A05-1943 A05-1944 Vicki L. Kollross, Relator (A05-1898, A05-1972), Respondent (A05-1943, A05-1944), vs. REC, Inc., Respondent (A05-1898), Relator (A05-1943), Minnstar Builders, Inc., Relator (A05-1944), Respondent (A05-1972), Department of Employment and Economic Development, Respondent. PETERSON, Judge In these consolidated appeals, REC, Inc. and Minnstar Builders, Inc. challenge a senior unemployment review judge's (SURJ) decision that services performed for them by Vicki Kollross were in covered employment for unemployment tax and benefit purposes, and Kollross challenges the SURJ's decision that she quit her employment at REC, Inc. and Minnstar Builders, Inc. We affirm. = = = = A05-2109 Joy Bannister-Rice, Relator, vs. Haven Chemical Health Systems, LLC, Respondent, Department of Employment and Economic Development, Respondent. HALBROOKS, Judge Relator challenges the senior unemployment-review judge's decision that she is disqualified from receiving unemployment benefits because she was discharged from employment due to misconduct. Relator contends that the fact that she failed to timely report suspected sexual abuse of a child does not amount to employment misconduct. Additionally, relator contends that the senior unemployment-review judge erred by not remanding for an additional hearing before the unemployment-law judge for consideration of documents she had submitted. We affirm. = = = = A05-2222 In re the Marriage of: Walter Frank Branz, petitioner, Respondent, vs. Marie Annette Blagsvedt Branz, Appellant. MINGE, Judge Appellant challenges several portions of the judgment in this dissolution proceeding. We reverse and remand on certain determinations regarding child support, maintenance, and property division. Based on a representation that the parties have resolved their disputes regarding custody and parenting time, we do not consider those matters. We affirm in all other respects. = = = = A05-2147 Michelle M. LaBeau, Relator, vs. Department of Employment and Economic Development, Respondent. MINGE, Judge Relator challenges the ULJ's decision requiring her to repay unemployment benefits. Because the ULJ properly exercised jurisdiction and because relator entered into a stipulation without permitting the intervenor to participate, we affirm. = = = = A05-1784 Ali Dunham, et al., Appellants, vs. Wayzata Country Club, Respondent. MINGE, Judge Appellants, former members of respondent country club, brought an action against respondent for alleged discriminatory treatment and improper termination of their membership. Appellants challenge the district court's determination that they failed to prove claims tried to the district court under the Minnesota Human Rights Act (MHRA) for retaliation and gender discrimination. Appellants also claim that various procedural irregularities and the district court's refusal to instruct the jury on their tort claim require a new jury trial. Finally, appellants ask this court to strike a portion of respondent's appendix. By notice of review, respondent challenges the district court's determination that respondent is subject to the MHRA. Because respondent has a nondiscriminatory explanation for terminating appellants' country club membership and because appellants failed to show a causal connection between the alleged discriminatory acts and the termination, we affirm the district court's determination that the membership was not terminated because of retaliation or gender discrimination. Further, because appellants were not prejudiced by the district court's limiting the jury's consideration to the contract claim or by procedural irregularities during the jury's deliberations, we affirm the district court's denial of appellants' motion for a new trial. Finally, we deny appellants' motion to strike. = = = = A05-2256 Ran Mart Stucco, Texture & Drywall, Incorporated, Appellant, vs. Danna Homes, Inc., et al., Defendants, Danna, Inc., et al., Respondents, QSSC, Inc., d/b/a Quality Scaffolding Solutions, intervening defendant, Respondent. HUDSON, Judge On appeal from the district court's sua sponte dismissal of a mechanic's lien action and the district court's subsequent refusal to reopen the judgment, appellant argues that the district court (1) erred by dismissing its claim without first giving appellant notice; (2) violated its due process rights; and (3) erred by denying appellant's motion to reopen the judgment. Because the district court abused its discretion when it denied appellant's motion to reopen the judgment, we reverse and remand. Because we reverse on that basis, we do not reach appellant's due process claim. = = = = A06-494 Gregory D. Ellis, Relator, vs. Ramsey County, Respondent, Department of Employment and Economic Development, Respondent. WRIGHT, Judge Relator challenges the decision of the unemployment law judge that he is disqualified from receiving unemployment benefits because he was discharged for employment misconduct. We affirm. = = = = A05-2398 In re the Marriage of: Michelle E. Li-Kuehne, petitioner, Appellant, vs. Stephen E. Kuehne, Respondent. WRIGHT, Judge Appellant argues that the district court misapplied the law and misinterpreted the parties' stipulation when it denied her motion for a spousal-maintenance cost-of-living adjustment. We reverse and remand. = = = = A05-2295/A06-416 In re the Marriage of: Dareth Molde, petitioner, Respondent, vs. Troy Molde, Appellant. WORKE, Judge In these consolidated appeals, appellant argues that the district court erred in its temporary order by (1) failing to use the Hortis/Valento formula to set appellant's child-support obligation; (2) ordering appellant to pay temporary maintenance without finding that appellant had the ability to pay maintenance and that respondent was in need of maintenance; and (3) apportioning the debt on certain real property to appellant. Appellant also argues that it was improper for the district court to vacate portions of the judgment because (4) the district court lacked authority to do so while the appeal of the temporary order was pending; (5) respondent's motion did not satisfy Minn. R. Gen. Pract. 303(a) (1); (6) respondent was allowed to submit documentation; (7) appellant was not afforded an evidentiary hearing; and (8) the district court did not have jurisdiction over maintenance because of the parties' waiver. Finally, appellant argues that the district court abused its discretion by denying appellant's motion for attorney fees. We affirm. = = = = A06-359 Richard E. Misel, Jr., Relator, vs. Lakeside Protection, Inc., Respondent, Department of Employment and Economic Development, Respondent. ROSS,Judge In this certiorari appeal, relator Richard Misel challenges the unemployment law judge's decision that he quit without good reason caused by his employer and that he was disqualified from receiving unemployment benefits. Because the record contains substantial support for the unemployment law judge's findings of fact and the conclusions of law are not erroneous, we affirm. = = = = A06-248 Michael C. Rollins, Appellant, Rodney W. Gulbro, et al., Plaintiffs, vs. Ivan R. Krueger, et al., Respondents, John P. Coleman, Defendant, Erwin A. Lingitz, Respondent, Frankie D. Lingitz, Respondent. PARKER, Judge Appellant challenges the district court's order denying appellant's claim that he is legally entitled to access across respondents' land because (1) the land was dedicated to public use; or (2) he, along with other owners, holds an easement across the land. On notice of review, respondents challenge (1) the district court's decision to refer appellant's attorney to the Lawyer's Professional Responsibility Board rather than order monetary sanctions; and (2) the district court's denial of damages for appellant's destruction of respondents' trees. We affirm. = = = = A05-2190 Richard Lee Mees, petitioner, Appellant, vs. Commissioner of Public Safety, Respondent. WRIGHT, Judge Appellant challenges the district court's decision sustaining the decision of the Commissioner of Public Safety cancelling appellant's driver's license. Appellant argues that (1) the district court abused its discretion by denying appellant's request for a continuance to obtain substitute counsel; (2) the district court committed evidentiary errors; (3) appellant was denied the right to effective assistance of counsel; (4) appellant was denied the right to a jury trial; and (5) the driver's-license-reinstatement procedure violates due process of law. 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 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. |
