THE SAINT PAUL PERSONAL INJURY ATTORNEY  
Minneapolis attorney Michael E. Douglas Attorney at Law
  Minneapolis Personal Injury Attorney
  St. Paul Workers Compensation Lawyer work comp attorney
 > About Me
   :: My Commitment
   :: Our Community
   
 > Legal Practice Areas
  twin cities comsumer lawPersonal Injury
   :: Traffic Accidents
   :: Medical Malpractice
   :: Social Security Disability
   :: Premises Liability
   :: Wrongful Death
   :: Dog Bite
   :: Back/Spinal/Neck Injuries
   :: Whiplash
   :: Defective Medical Devices
   :: Defective Drugs
  Minnesota Personal InjuryWorkers Compensation
  St. Paul personal injuryConsumer Law
   :: Debt Collection
   :: Repossessions
   :: Foreclosures
   :: Loan, Credit, Banking
   :: Arbitration Agreements
   :: Deception and Fraud
   :: Auto Fraud / Lemon Law
   :: Warranties
   :: Predatory Lending
   
 > Contact Us
   :: Contact Us
 

Law Offices of Michael E. Douglas
P.O. Box 251551
Woodbury, Minnesota 55125-6551
   

Saint Paul Lawyer
 
 mdouglas@injurylawstpaul.com

 

UNPUBLISHED CIVIL OPINIONS FROM THE MINNESOTA COURT OF APPEALS

In 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.
 

 
 
 

  What day were you injured?

  / /


  What caused your injuries?
Traffic/Bicycle Accident
Work-Related Injury
Wrongful Death
Dog Bite
Slip and Fall
Other:


  How have your injuries affected

  your life?

 


  What kinds of medical care
  professionals have you seen?

 


  What has your treatment cost?

 

  Is Insurance Involved?
My insurance may cover
        this.

Someone else's insurance
        may cover this.

I already filed a claim.
I rejected a settlement
        offer.

I accepted a settlement
        offer.

  Were there any witnesses?
Bystanders Witnessed This.
Police Responded and Filed
        a Police Report

Police Responded but Did
        Not File a Police Report


 
          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.