Source: http://www.lommen.com/Firm-News/Appellate-Decisions.aspx
Timestamp: 2013-05-19 11:17:55
Document Index: 533569614

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 518', '§ 518', '§ 337', '§ 337', '§ 1983', '§ 500', '§ 504', '§ 518', '§ 8', '§ 65', '§ 513', '§ 549', '§ 145', '§ 145', '§ 8', '§ 8', '§ 8', '§504', '§ 548', '§ 85', '§ 548', '§ 115', '§ 548', '§ 80', '§ 230', '§133']

Appellate Court Decisions | Lommen Abdo Law Firm
For more information, contact Kay Nord Hunt, Appellate Section Chair, at kay@lommen.com or 612-336-9341 or 800-752-4297.
RCH Mortgage Fund IV, LLC v. Byrd, LLC - Minnesota Court of Appeals Decision of April 29, 2013
Appellants defaulted on two promissory notes that were secured by a mortgage on real property and guaranteed by Appellant’s chief manager. The district court entered summary judgment for the lender after concluding, as a matter of law, that Appellant was in default on its obligation to repay the notes, that Appellant had breached a term of the mortgage by giving another lender a mortgage encumbering the same real property, and that Appellant’s chief manager is liable on his personal guaranty of the notes.
Hanson v. Wetherby - Minnesota Court of Appeals Decision of April 29, 2013
Appellant mother challenges the district court’s order rejecting a parenting consultant’s decision on the school district in which the parties’ minor children should attend school, arguing that the district court erred by concluding that the parenting consultant’s decision was unenforceable and abused its discretion by concluding that it was in the children’s best interests to continue attending school in their current school district.
Persons v. Johnson - Minnesota Court of Appeals Decision of April 15, 2013
In this attorney-client dispute after an unfavorable decision in a marriage dissolution proceeding, the attorney claims that his client failed to pay him and the client claims that his attorney failed to reasonably represent him. Client Stephen Persons argues that the district court erred by granting summary judgment in favor of attorney Dennis Johnson and the Chestnut & Cambronne law firm on Persons’s claims that Johnson committed malpractice and on Johnson’s counterclaim for the unpaid legal fees.
In re the G.B. Van Dusen Marital Trust - Minnesota Court of Appeals Decision of April 8, 2013
This appeal concerns the terms of a trust that was created to provide for the grantor’s wife after his death. Since the grantor’s death, his widow has received all income produced by the trust and limited distributions of trust principal. The trustee has denied her requests for additional distributions of principal. In addition, the trustee has denied her requests to convert non-income-producing property to income-producing property.
Kremer v. Kremer - Minnesota Court of Appeals Decision of February 19, 2013
When one parent relocates to another state before the district court has made a final custody determination, and where that relocation was necessarily addressed in the district court’s custody decree, the district court is not required to determine whether the parent’s relocation is in the child’s best interests under Minn. Stat. § 518.175, subd. 3 (2012), because (1) that statute only applies when a parent decides to relocate after the final decree has been filed, and (2) the impact of the parent’s relocation on the child is implicit in the best-interests factors that the district court is required to apply in making a custody determination under Minn. Stat. § 518.17, subd. 1(a) (2012).
ECI v. L.H. Bolduc Co., Inc., et al. - Minnesota Supreme Court Decision of January 23, 2013
1. An endorsement in a subcontractor’s insurance policy making a contractor an additional insured for liability “caused by the acts or omissions” of the subcontractor limits the additional insured’s coverage to instances of vicarious liability for the subcontractor’s negligence.
2. A contractual indemnification provision in a construction contract obligating a subcontractor to indemnify another party for damages not caused by the subcontractor’s fault, unaccompanied by either a coextensive insurance agreement or a proper allegation under Minn. Stat. § 337.05, subd. 2 (2012), that the promisor has failed to procure the required insurance, violates Minn. Stat. § 337.02 (2012).
Rice v. Greenberg - Minnesota Court of Appeals Decision of December 3, 2012
Appellant challenges the district court’s order granting respondent’s motion to reopen the parties’ marriage-dissolution judgment and decree on the bases that appellant committed fraud on the court and that the prospective application of the judgment is no longer equitable.
San Diego Gas & Electric/Southern California Edison - U.S. Bankruptcy Appellate Panel for the Eighth Circuit Decision of November 14, 2012
Two utility companies appealed to the Eighth Circuit Bankruptcy Appellate Panel from a judgment against them in a preference case brought by a Trustee for a Third-Party Payor raising three issues: (1) the Defendants were not creditors of the Debtors; (2) the payments were not payment of antecedent debt; and (3) the trial court erred in limiting the dollar amount of Defendants’ asserted new value defense. The BAP affirmed, in part, and reversed in part, holding that the Defendants were creditors of the Debtors, the payments were payment of antecedent debt, but that the Trial Court erred in limiting the Defendants’ new value defense to services provided by the Defendants to the Debtors. The BAP held that Defendants were entitled to the full amount of the new value provided to the Debtors by its customers as the result of the utility services provided by the Defendants.
Cassell v. County of Ramsey, et al. - Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals Decision of November 7, 2012
Plaintiff-Appellant appeals the district court’s judgment granting defendants’ motions to dismiss his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action, and denying as moot his motion for a preliminary injunction. Following careful review, we conclude that Plaintiff-Appellant’s complaint, which sought to overturn state-court rulings made in the course of five years of child custody and support litigation, was properly dismissed.
Schupp v. United Fire & Casualty Company - Minnesota Court of Appeals Decision of October 1, 2012
Appellant United Fire & Casualty Company (United Fire) challenges the district court’s grant of summary judgment to respondents Jonathon Schupp and Northern Pine Lodge, Inc. United Fire contends that the district court improperly nullified an automobile exclusion in Northern Pine Lodge’s commercial general liability insurance policy after erroneously determining that United Fire failed to comply with Minnesota law when renewing the lodge’s policy.
Kastning v. State Farm - Minnesota Court of Appeals Decision of September 24, 2012
Appellants challenge the district court’s summary-judgment dismissal of their claim for uninsured motorist coverage under a policy issued by respondent, arguing that the farm tractor with which they collided was an uninsured “motor vehicle” within the meaning of their policy and, alternatively, that they are entitled to coverage under the reasonable-expectations doctrine.
Shorter v. Vermilya - Minnesota Court of Appeals Decision of September 10, 2012
Appellants challenge the district court’s award of summary judgment to respondent bank and respondent purchasers of appellants’ farm. The district court rejected appellants’ (1) challenge to the foreclosure proceeding, (2) claim for damages and equitable relief for bank’s failure to comply with the notice requirements of Minn. Stat. § 500.245 (2010), and (3) claims that purchasers violated Minn. Stat. § 504B.365 (2010) and converted appellants’ personal property left on the foreclosed property. Because there are no genuine issues of material fact concerning service of the foreclosure action and appellants’ claims regarding personal property, we affirm summary judgment on those claims.
Leifur v. Leifur - Minnesota Court of Appeals Decision of September 4, 2012
Under Minn. Stat. § 518A.39, subd. 2(e) (2010), the district court may not make a maintenance modification retroactive to a time before the moving party served notice of the modification motion even though the parties agreed to an earlier retroactive date in a mediated agreement. In this maintenance-modification dispute, appellant-husband argues that the district court erred by invalidating the parties’ mediated agreement that any modification of spousal support would be retroactive to a specific date before the modification motion was served.
Hanson v. Michales - Minnesota Court of Appeals Decision of August 27, 2012
Appellant in this dissolution action assigned certain funds to her attorney. In this appeal, appellant argues that the consensual special magistrate, who held the funds after judgment was entered, lacked authority to distribute the funds to appellant’s attorney and that the district court lacked authority to approve the distribution.
Uppal v. Positive - Minnesota Court of Appeals Decision of August 27, 2012
In consolidated appeals from a mechanic’s-lien action, appellants challenge the district court’s grant of default judgments against them as a sanction for their failure to attend a pretrial conference and the district court’s denial of their motions to vacate those judgments. Because respondents did not demonstrate prejudice in allowing this action to proceed and the district court did not consider a less severe sanction before entering default judgment against pro se appellants, we conclude that the district court abused its discretion by granting the default judgments.
Curtis v. Philip Morris - Minnesota Supreme Court Decision of May 30, 2012
1. Under Minn. Stat. § 8.31 (2010), the Minnesota Attorney General (State AG) has the authority to bring a lawsuit under subdivision 3 on behalf of the State, and to seek not only the relief available to the State AG under subdivision 3, but also the relief available to a private litigant under subdivision 3a. It logically follows that the State AG has the authority to settle and release a private litigant’s claims brought under section 8.31, subdivision 3a. 2. A private litigant pursuing a subdivision 3a claim does not have the authority to settle or release the section 8.31 claims of the State without the express consent of the State. A private litigant does have the authority to settle its own subdivision 3a claim with a responsible party, and a district court may approve a settlement of a subdivision 3a class action of all similarly situated private litigants who could bring a subdivision 3a lawsuit. But that settlement agreement and release are not binding on the State without express written consent of the State AG, approved by the court. 3. The 1998 Settlement Agreement entered into by the State AG and Philip Morris expressly released and barred respondents’ consumer protection claims asserted under section 8.31, subdivision 3a, and is binding on respondents.
Pepper v. State Farm - Minnesota Supreme Court Decision of May 30, 2012
An insurer may enforce an insurance policy exclusion that prevents coverage conversion without violating the No-Fault Act, Minn. Stat. §§ 65B.41-71 (2010). Coverage conversion arises when an insured recovers liability benefits and underinsured motorist benefits under separate policies issued by the same insurer to one tortfeasor.
McClelland v. Life Insurance Company of North America - Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals Decision of May 24, 2012
Life Insurance Company of North America (LINA) appeals the district court's ruling that LINA abused its discretion in denying death benefits to Dawn McClelland based upon her husband Anthony's life insurance policy. LINA also appeals the district court's award of attorney fees. Haefele v. Haefele - Minnesota Court of Appeals Decision of May 7, 2012
Distributions from a Subchapter S corporation to a shareholder, to be transferred by the shareholder to another business entity, are not the shareholder’s income for child support purposes when the distributions and transfer occurred to further the corporation’s legitimate business purposes and were not to be used by the shareholder. Similarly, distributions made to a shareholder by a Subchapter S corporation solely to cover the shareholder’s share of the tax liability on the corporation’s retained earnings are business expenses that should not be included as gross income when calculating the shareholder’s child support.
Daly v. McFarland - Minnesota Supreme Court Decision of April 25, 2012
This negligence action arose out of injuries sustained by respondent Christopher John Daly while snowmobiling with appellant Zachary John McFarland and two other friends. Appellant argues that the district court erred in (1) denying his motion for judgment as a matter of law (JMOL) based on respondent’s assumption of risk; (2) declining to instruct the jury on the emergency rule; and (3) reconciling the jury’s inconsistent responses to the special verdict interrogatories.
Roers v. Pierce - Minnesota Court of Appeals Decision of April 9, 2012
In this home-sale dispute, appellant-seller argues that the district court (1) erred in ruling that appellant’s violation of Minn. Stat. § 513.55 (2010), which addresses the disclosure a home seller must execute, constituted an intentional tort and required appellant to pay 100% of the damages, despite being found only 13% at fault; and (2) should have granted appellant judgment as a matter of law when respondents failed to present adequate proof of damages.
Blue Star Plumbing v. Herges - Minnesota Court of Appeals Decision of April 9, 2012
Appellant challenges the district court’s dismissal of its contribution and indemnity claims under Minn. R. Civ. P. 12.02(e), arguing that the district court erred in determining that appellant’s third-party complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. Appellant also challenges the district court’s imposition of sanctions against appellant’s counsel under Minn. Stat. § 549.211 (2010) and Minn. R. Civ. P. 11. Gates v. Scherer - Minnesota Court of Appeals Decision of April 2, 2012
Appellant challenges the district court’s judgment and orders denying pretrial and posttrial motions, in an action to enforce settlement of the underlying claims. In their notice of related appeal, co-appellants challenge the district court’s Minn. R. Civ. P. 41.02(a) dismissal of their claims as creditors in the underlying breach-of-contract action for failure to prosecute.
Vitamin v. Vermeulen - Minnesota Court of Appeals Decision of April 2, 2012
Appellant-client challenges the district court’s grant of summary judgment to an attorney and her law firm (collectively, respondent) on a legal-malpractice claim. Respondent represented appellant in her marriage-dissolution proceedings; appellant argues that respondent’s negligence resulted in the misidentification and division of marital property.
Schwalbe v. American Red Cross - Minnesota Supreme Court Decision of March 29, 2012
The employer and insurer appeal from the Workers' Compensation Court of Appeals' determination that the employee was in the course and scope of her employment when she was injured in a motor vehicle accident on April 7, 2009. Langford Tool v. The 401 Group, LLC - Minnesota Court of Appeals Decision of March 19, 2012
Respondent-lender sued appellant-borrowers for defaulting on the parties’ loan agreement. Appellants challenge the district court’s granting of summary judgment in respondent’s favor, contending (1) genuine disputes of material fact preclude summary judgment and (2) the district court abused its discretion by denying their motions for a continuance and reconsideration. Gearin v. Sunram - Minnesota Court of Appeals Decision of January 9, 2012
Appellant challenges the district court’s dismissal of her negligence claim based on the statute of limitations. Appellant urges this court to hold that her claim was not ripe until she knew that her personal injuries were caused by the respondents’ negligent act, or alternatively, that the doctrines of equitable tolling, fraudulent concealment, equitable estoppel, or continued activity tolled the statute of limitations.
Dickhoff v. Green - Minnesota Court of Appeals Decision of January 3, 2012
A medical-malpractice claim based on a physician’s failure to diagnose cancer is not barred as a mere “loss of chance” (or reduced-chance) claim when the misdiagnosis resulted in a delay in treatment that makes it more likely than not that the patient will not survive the cancer. CBIZ v. Barton - Ohio Court of Appeals Decision of November 17, 2011
Defendants-appellants appeal from the judgment of the trial court that granted plaintiff-appellee injunctive relief, damages, attorneys' fees, litigation fees and costs in an action for breach of various agreements.
Roers v. Pierce - Minnesota Court of Appeals Decision of November 14, 2011
Appellants challenge the district court’s order on priority of distribution of settlement proceeds in this action, arguing that the district court erred in holding that the garnishment action of one appellant’s judgment creditor has priority over appellant law firm’s attorney lien and applies to non-marital assets of the judgment debtor’s spouse.
Raiter v. Raiter - Minnesota Court of Appeals Decision of October 24, 2011
Appellant-husband challenges the district court’s modification of spousal maintenance retroactively increasing his obligation to respondent-wife. Because we discern no abuse of discretion in the district court’s maintenance modification, we affirm. Wesely v. Flor - Minnesota Supreme Court Decision of September 7, 2011
Appellant Elaine Wesely alleges that she received negligent care from respondent dentist A. David Flor. Appellant is permitted to utilize the safe-harbor period provided in Minn. Stat. § 145.682, subd. 6(c) (2010), to amend her initial affidavit of expert disclosure when the initial affidavit identified a non-qualifying expert. Under Minn. Stat. § 145.682, subd. 6(c) (2010), appellant is permitted to correct deficiencies in her initial affidavit of expert disclosure by submitting an amended affidavit that identifies an expert different from the individual identified in the initial affidavit.
Schwalbe v. American Red Cross - Workers' Compensation Court of Appeals Decision of September 14, 2011
The employer and insurer appeal from the compensation judge's determination that the employee was in the course and scope of her employment when she was injured in a motor vehicle accident on April 7, 2009. The employee has cross-appealed the compensation judge's "finding" that alternate theories of recovery "would have failed."
Chilkoot v. Watkins - Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals Decision of September 13, 2011
Appellants appeal the district court’s adverse grant of summary judgment in favor of Appellee, on their claim for breach of a 1988 contract between the parties. The district court held that the 1988 contract had been superseded by a subsequent agreement between the parties, and thus the Appellants’ claim for breach of the 1988 contract failed as a matter of law. Because the court concluded that there is a genuine issue of fact as to whether the Appellants and Appellee mutually assented to enter a new contract, the court reversed and remanded.
Jackson v. Hertz - Minnesota Court of Appeals Decision of August 1, 2011
An award of attorney fees pursuant to Minnesota Statutes section 322B.38 or section 322B.833, subdivision 7, does not relate to the merits of a violation of chapter 322B but, rather, is collateral to the merits. Thus, a judgment on the merits of a claim alleging a violation of chapter 322B is an appealable final judgment even if the issue of attorney fees has been reserved.
Bushard v. Reisman - Wisconsin Supreme Court Decision of June 30, 2011
This Wisconsin appeal deals with the breakup of a business partnership. One partner asked that the business be wound up, but the other continued to operate the business and took a salary without permission. Because there was no written partnership agreement, the Wisconsin Supreme Court held that, under the 1914 Uniform Partnership Act, no additional salary was permitted and the remaining partner was ordered to wind up the business.
Trosvig v. Trosvig - Minnesota Court of Appeals Decision of May 31, 2011
Appellant-husband challenges the district court’s unequal division of the marital property, awarding wife’s pension solely to her.
Rowe Construction v. Title Mark - Minnesota Court of Appeals Decision of March 29, 2011
This case involves a mortgage “flipping” scheme. Appellants' construction company, and personal guarantors of mortgage-related note, challenge the district court's summary judgment in favor of respondent's closing agent and title-insurance company on appellants' claims for breach of fiduciary duty, failure to disclose material information, vicarious liability and breach of contract. Jacobson v. Power Team - Workers' Compensation Court of Appeals Decision of March 25, 2011
The compensation judge found the employee's work activities were not a substantial contributing cause of her bilateral hand, wrist and arm symptoms. The employee appeals this finding, contending the judge erroneously required the employee to prove a specific diagnosis as a condition of compensability.
Rogalski v. Little Poker League, LLC - Minnesota Court of Appeals Decision of February 22, 2011
Appellant won a Texas hold’em tournament conducted by respondent. The parties dispute the nature of the prize. Respondent contends that the prize was a seat in the 2009 World Series of Poker Main in Las Vegas, with the entry fee of $10,000 and travel-related expenses of $2,500 to be paid by respondent. Appellant contends that he had the option of accepting $12,500—the cash value of the prize. Appellant sued respondent for breach of contract and requested damages in the amount of $10,000. Respondent counterclaimed for breach of contract, seeking return of the $2,500 advance to cover Appellant's expenses. The district court granted judgment on the pleadings in respondent’s favor. Appellant challenges the district court’s resolution of these claims, arguing that (1) a unilateral contract was formed when he began to participate in the tournament; and (2) the agreement he signed during the tournament was invalid.
Wright v. Allstate - Wisconsin Court of Appeals Decision of February 1, 2011
Elaine Wright appeals an order granting summary and declaratory judgment to Allstate Insurance Company, which insured Rene Stermole -- who, while mentally ill, fatally shot Wright's husband -- and Rene's mother, Maria Stermole. Wright presents five bases for appeal, four of which pertain to Rene and one that pertains to Maria.
Daly v. McFarland - Minnesota Court of Appeals Decision of January 25, 2011
Engelke, et al. v. State Farm - Minnesota Court of Appeals Decision of January 4, 2011
Melissa Speich died of injuries sustained in an automobile accident that occurred while she was driving a car belonging to her fiancé, Adam Doyle. Her parents seek to establish that an umbrella policy issued by State Farm Fire and Casualty Company to Adam Doyle‟s parents provides underinsured motor vehicle coverage. The district court concluded that Melissa Speich was not an insured under the umbrella policy and granted summary judgment to the insurer.
Hafermann v. Hafermann - Minnesota Court of Appeals Decision of January 4, 2011
In this appeal of an order for protection (OFP), appellant Kevin Gerald Hafermann argues that the district court abused its discretion by granting the OFP because the record does not support a finding of domestic abuse against respondent Jessica Lynn Hafermann. Appellant also contends that the district court abused its discretion by granting respondent’s oral motion to amend the OFP petition to include the parties’ children.
Curtis, et al. v. Altria Group, Inc., et al. - Minnesota Court of Appeals Decision of December 28, 2010
Four issues were addressed: 1. The "public benefit" required to bring a claim under Minn. Stat. § 8.31, subd. 3a (2008), for injuries caused by violation of consumer-protection statutes is satisfied by evidence that misrepresentations alleged to have violated the law were made to the public at large. 2. Claims under Minn. Stat. § 8.31, subd. 3a, for injuries allegedly caused by intentional, public misrepresentation by a manufacturer about the nature of its product, may satisfy the "public benefit" element required to maintain such an action, even after the government acts to address the same misrepresentations. 3. An individual bringing a civil action for damages or other relief under Minn. Stat. § 8.31, subd. 3a, is not directly, indirectly, representatively, derivatively, or in any other capacity, an agent or representative of the state. 4. The general rule that fraudulent concealment tolls a statute of limitations applies to statutory consumer-protection claims.
Johnsen v. Waymouth Farms - Minnesota Court of Appeals Decision of December 28, 2010
Relator challenges the decision of an unemployment-law judge (ULJ) denying her unemployment-compensation benefits on the grounds that she was not discharged from employment and that she did not quit her job because of a good reason caused by her employer.
Wahl v. Wahl - Minnesota Court of Appeals Decision of December 14, 2010
Appellant Christopher Wahl challenges the district court’s grant of respondent Kimberly Wahl’s petition for a domestic-abuse order for protection (OFP). Because we conclude that the record supports the district court’s finding of terroristic threats as the basis for the OFP and the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying appellant’s motion to modify or vacate the OFP, we affirm.
Loye, et al. v. County of Dakota - Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals Decision of November 17, 2010
On an afternoon in September of 2004 two boys stole two bottles of mercury from an abandoned building, took this hazardous substance to a playground near the Rosemount Woods mobile home park, and released it while playing. Police officers knocked on doors to identify those who had been exposed, and the City contacted state and local agencies to help deal with the environmental and public health emergency. Forty-nine persons began decontamination, including four individuals who were deaf (Plaintiffs). The decision of the Eighth Court of Appeals concerns claims of Plaintiffs that violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act, §504 of the Rehabilitation Act and the Minnesota Human Rights Act, were made when interpreters were not provided for all of the services being provided to the public.
Arnholt v. Arnholt - Minnesota Court of Appeals Decision of September 28, 2010
In this dissolution action, appellant-father challenges the district court’s grant of sole legal and physical custody of the parties’ children to respondent-mother, arguing that the district court abused its discretion by rejecting the report of a neutral custody evaluator. Appellant also argues that the district court abused its discretion by granting respondent a disproportionate share of the parties’ property and an award of maintenance that is unsupported by the record.
Doe v. ISD 2154 - Minnesota Court of Appeals Decision of September 14, 2010
A kindergarten student was sexually assaulted in appellant school district‟s elementary school during school hours. Respondent, mother and natural guardian of the child, sued appellant, alleging negligent supervision and negligent enforcement of and/or failure to adopt appropriate school security policies. Appellant moved for summary judgment based on official and statutory immunity. The district court granted partial summary judgment based on statutory immunity, dismissing all but respondent‟s claim for negligent supervision. Appellant challenges the district court‟s determination that official immunity does not apply to the negligent supervision claim. In a related appeal, respondent challenges the grant of summary judgment on the remaining claims.
Barton, et al. v. Mayer Hoffman McCann, P.C. - Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals Decision of August 11, 2010
Appellee "MHM" sued its former employees and shareholders, all CPAs licensed by the State of Minnesota, to enforce restrictive covenants contained in contractual agreements between the appellants and MHM. Following a bench trial, the district court granted judgment to MHM, awarding MHM permanent injunctive relief and $1,369,921 in liquidated damages. Appellants bring this appeal, contending that: (1)
enforcement of the restrictive covenants is contrary to Missouri law and (2) even if the restrictive covenants are enforceable, the liquidated damages provision is void and unenforceable under Missouri law. We reject these contentions and affirm the judgment of the district court.
CMIC v. Farr - Minnesota Court of Appeals Decision of August 10, 2010
Appellant challenges the judgment denying enforcement of a personal guaranty against respondent. The district court erred as a matter of law in concluding that the personal guaranty is unenforceable because it is ambiguous; and the clear terms of the personal guaranty mandate entry of judgment in favor of appellant. Swanson v. Brewster - Minnesota Supreme Court Decision of June 30, 2010
Negotiated-discount amounts—amounts a plaintiff is billed by a medical provider but does not pay because the plaintiff’s insurance provider negotiates a discount on the plaintiff’s behalf—are "collateral sources" for purposes of the collateral-source statute, Minn. Stat. § 548.251 (2008).
Stewart v. Koenig - Minnesota Supreme Court Decision of June 10, 2010
An easement-user who crosses a state trail for purposes of access to the main road as contemplated by Minn. Stat. § 85.015, subd. 1b (2004), is not a “trail user” within the meaning of Minn. R. 6100.3400, subp. 6(D) (2009).
Igo v. Igo - Minnesota Court of Appeals Decision of June 8, 2010
In dissolving the parties’ four-year marriage, the district court ruled that the parties’ entire premarital agreement (PMA) was unenforceable and awarded respondent Jennifer Igo $60,000 in costs and attorney fees, despite inclusion in the parties’ PMA of a severability clause and a provision requiring the parties to pay their own costs and attorney fees in the event of a marital dissolution. On appeal, appellant Richard Igo argues that the district court (1) erred by failing to consider the effectiveness of the severability clause when it determined that the entire PMA was unenforceable; (2) abused its discretion by awarding respondent attorney fees without identifying the extent to which the award was need-based or conduct-based; and (3) abused its discretion by imposing a continuing monetary sanction against appellant for his failure to turn over eleven vehicles to respondent as required by the original decree.
Van Steenburgh v. Clyma - Minnesota Court of Appeals Decision of May 4, 2010
In this marital-dissolution appeal, appellant-obligee Mark Edward Clyma argues he should have received a larger share of marital property, a larger, permanent spousal-maintenance award, and additional need-based attorney fees. Respondent-obligor Tracy Joan Van Steenburgh challenges the existing awards of maintenance and attorney fees. Welsch v. Welsch - Minnesota Court of Appeals Decision of March 23, 2010
Appellant challenges the district court’s denial of his motion for amended findings or a new trial in this child custody case. Because the district court did not abuse its discretion in establishing the extent and conditions of appellant’s parenting time, we affirm. Smith v. Lindell & Lavoie - Minnesota Court of Appeals Decision of November 17, 2009
Appellant challenges the district court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of respondents, arguing that genuine issues of material fact exist concerning his claims of breach of contract, tortious interference of contract, defamation, and tortious interference with prospective economic advantage.
Pappas v. Cummings - Minnesota Court of Appeals Decision of September 29, 2009
In this personal injury action, Appellant challenges the judgment, which resulted in no recovery of medical costs because the jury’s award of damages was offset by the amount she received from collateral sources pursuant to Minn. Stat. § 548.251 (2008). Appellant asserts that the court erred by refusing to reduce the collateral source offset by the amount of the costs and attorney fees she incurred to obtain judgment.
Faegre & Benson v. R&R Investors - Minnesota Court of Appeals Decision of September 29, 2009
This is an appeal from summary judgment in an interpleader action in which the district court determined that respondent partnership was entitled to the proceeds from the settlement of a lawsuit against the federal government, and dismissed appellants’ damages claims against respondent law firms, who were litigation counsel in the federal lawsuit and commenced this interpleader action to resolve the dispute over settlement proceeds.
Petition for Instructions to Construe Basic Resolution 876 - Minnesota Supreme Court Decision of September 10, 2009
The district court's orders regarding Basic Resolution 876 are void because the district court lacked in rem jurisdiction over the revenue bonds.
Upper Minnetonka Yacht Club v. City of Shorewood - Minnesota Court of Appeals Decision of July 28, 2009
In this land-use dispute, appellant argues that it has the inherent authority to amend respondent’s CUP to reflect the representations that respondent made in its CUP application regarding its intended use of the property. Respondent contends that appellant cannot unilaterally amend its CUP.
Zandi v. Wyeth - Minnesota Court of Appeals Decision of July 21, 2009
Appellant sued several drug manufacturers after she was diagnosed with hormone-dependent breast cancer following years of hormone-replacement therapy. The district court awarded summary judgment to respondents Pfizer, Inc., Pharmacia & Upjohn Co., LLC, and Greenstone, Ltd. based on appellant‟s failure to raise a genuine issue of material fact regarding her claimed ingestion of drugs manufactured by these respondents. After holding that appellant‟s proffered specific-causation evidence does not satisfy the Frye-Mack standard and that appellant‟s experts are not qualified under Minn. R. Evid. 702, the district court awarded summary judgment to Wyeth, Inc. and Wyeth Pharmaceuticals, Inc.
Geiselman v. Geiselman - Minnesota Court of Appeals Decision of June 9, 2009
On appeal in this spousal maintenance dispute, appellant-husband argues that the district court‟s spousal maintenance award was an abuse of discretion and the district court miscalculated the equalizer payment.
Osgood v. Stanton - Minnesota Court of Appeals Decision of June 9, 2009
In this land dispute case, appellants challenge the district court's grant of summary judgment in favor of respondents on the issues of adverse possession, ejectment, and judicial determination of the boundary lines. Appellants also argue that they were entitled to summary judgment on the ejectment issue. On notice of review, respondents contend that when appellants' adverse-possession claim was dismissed, it should have been dismissed with prejudice.
Rains v. BNSF - Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals Decision of June 3, 2009
Kevin Rains sued his employer, BNSF Railway Company, under the Federal Employer’s Liability Act for injuries he suffered from falling while inspecting a train stopped on a bridge. The district court granted summary judgment for BNSF after finding no evidence that BNSF’s negligence caused Rains’s fall and injuries. Rains appeals.
Thompson v. Thompson - Minnesota Court of Appeals Decision of May 19, 2009
Appellant argues that the district court abused its discretion in denying his motions for modification of child support and for an evidentiary hearing on modification of legal custody of the parties’ two children.
Erickson/Buendorf v. EMC - Minnesota Court of Appeals Decision of May 19, 2009
These consolidated appeals concern a dispute that ignited when the president of a lighting contracting company discovered files left on the computers of two managers who suddenly quit their employment. The discovery convinced the company that the two departing employees had been competing with the company for a contract with one of its prospective clients. A jury found that the employees breached their fiduciary duty and interfered with the company‘s prospective business relationship, awarding damages for the company‘s lost profits. But the district court entered judgment only on the company‘s claim of interference with a prospective business relationship, not breach of fiduciary duty, giving no reason for the omission. Both sides claim error.
Russell v. Roberts - Minnesota Court of Appeals Decision of May 12, 2009
This dispute arose after a debtor trusted her attorney’s mistaken opinion that the debtor’s annuity, created by a structured settlement in a civil suit, would entirely survive a bankruptcy proceeding. The debtor, Kimberly Russell, filed for bankruptcy and lost to creditors all but 20% of the value of the annuity. Russell sued George Roberts, her attorney, for legal malpractice and fraudulent misrepresentation. The district court granted Roberts summary judgment because Russell could not prove that she would have obtained a more favorable result by not filing for bankruptcy.
2446 University Avenue, LLC v. IFP Minnesota - Minnesota Court of Appeals Decision of April 21, 2009
Appellant lessor challenges summary judgment dismissing its action for reformation of a lease and denial of its motion to amend the complaint to add a claim for rescission. Because the district court did not err in concluding that, as a matter of law, appellant is not entitled to reformation or rescission, we affirm.
JEM Acres, LLC v. Bruno - Minnesota Court of Appeals Decision of April 14, 2009
A seller, who represents to a buyer that a septic system complies with applicable laws and rules governing sewage-treatment systems and who has reason to know that the representations are false, is not shielded from liability under Minn. Stat. § 115.55, subd. 6 (2008), based on the existence of a septic-system certificate of compliance.
Thompson v. Gerhardt - Minnesota Court of Appeals Decision of April 14, 2009
In this spousal maintenance dispute, appellant challenges the district court’s denial of his motion to modify maintenance and award of respondent’s attorney fees. Appellant argues that the district court abused its discretion when it found that respondent’s increased income was not a substantial change in circumstances that made the current maintenance payments unreasonable and unfair.
Franck v. CBL Partners - Wisconsin Court of Appeals Decision of March 10, 2009
Todd Franck appeals a judgment that dismissed his breach of contract and misrepresentation claims against CBL Partners, LLC, and its member, Lon Feia, and denied his motions after the verdict. He also appeals a judgment awarding attorney fees and costs to CBL. Franck contends the court No. 2008AP791 2 erroneously concluded a purchase contract for a condominium unit was ambiguous and the court should not have permitted the jury to determine the parties’ intent. He also contends the court erroneously instructed the jury on his misrepresentation
Swanson v. Brewster - Minnesota Court of Appeals Decision of March 3, 2009
Appellants challenge the district court's determination of a collateral-source offset for past medical expenses following a jury‟s award of damages to respondent. Appellants argue that under the collateral source statute, Minn. Stat. § 548.36, subd. 2 (2006), they are entitled to a full offset of respondent‟s past medical expenses, including amounts the medical providers wrote off.
J.W. v. 287 Intermediate District - Minnesota Court of Appeals Decision of March 3, 2009
Appellant J.W.‟s son, B.R.W., was sexually assaulted by another child while riding a school bus. Appellant sued two school districts and Adam Services, Inc. (Adam), the bus company that provided transportation during the school year. On summary judgment, the district court dismissed all of appellant‟s claims against respondents except for the negligence claim against respondent Adam. The district court also denied appellant‟s motion to amend her complaint to add a punitive-damages claim against Adam and Adam‟s motion for summary judgment.
Daley v. Patrick - Minnesota Court of Appeals Decision of January 13, 2009
On appeal after remand in this marital-dissolution proceeding, appellant-father Thomas Daley argues that the district court failed to follow this court’s remand instructions, abused its discretion by awarding permanent maintenance to respondent-mother Anne Daley, failed to make the findings required to support an upward deviation from his presumptively appropriate child-support obligation, and abused its discretion by making his support obligation retroactive to January 1, 2006. Father also argues that the district court failed to make the findings necessary to support an award to mother of need-based attorney fees.
Risdall v. Brown - Decision of Minnesota Court of Appeals of January 6, 2009
The Minnesota Supreme Court has directed the Minnesota Court of Appeals on remand to address the district court’s summary judgment order concluding that two securities offerings issued by appellants were integrated and thus not exempt from registration under Minnesota law.
Brown-Wilbert - Minnesota Court of Appeals Decision of December 31, 2008
On appeal from dismissal after remand of appellants’ claims for breach of contract, breach of fiduciary duty, and restitution, appellants argue that the district court erred in dismissing their claims because expert testimony is not required to present a prima facie case for breach of contract or for breach of fiduciary duty, and that if either claim is reinstated, the restitution claim must also be reinstated. Appellants also contend that the district court abused its discretion in refusing to consider appellants’ motion to amend their complaint.
Baker - Minnesota Court of Appeals Decision of December 9, 2008.
On remand from the Supreme Court, the Court of Appeals has been directed to address whether the investment return on appellant’s nonmarital interests in certain retirement accounts is marital because appellant did not (a) trace nonmarital interests in the appreciation of his interests in the retirement accounts or (b) distinguish the nonmarital appreciation of his interests from the marital income generated by those interests.
Popel v. Popel - Minnesota Court of Appeals Decision of October 14, 2008
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.
GSS Holdings v. Greenstein - Minnesota Court of Appeals Decision of September 9, 2008, argued by Kay Hunt on June 25, 2008
Appellant challenges the denial of his motion for judgment as a matter of law (JMOL), arguing that the jury’s finding that he conspired with a party to a noncompete contract to intentionally cause a breach of the contract and/or conspired with a nonparty to interfere with the noncompete contract is contrary to law.1 Because the verdict is contrary to law, we reverse the denial of appellant’s motion for JMOL.
Hawkins/Moore v. Fontaine - Minnesota Court of Appeals Decision of September 2, 2008, argued by Kay Hunt on June 5, 2008
Appellant challenges the district court’s dismissal of a medical-malpractice claim based on the failure to comply with the expert-disclosure statute, arguing that (1) the disclosures are sufficient to make the prima facie showing required by the statute and (2) the district court improperly evaluated and weighed the expert opinions against rebuttal evidence.
Brown-Risdahl - Minnesota Supreme Court Decision of July 31, 2008
1. Federal law does not preempt state registration requirements with respect to securities that purport to be, but are not in fact, federal covered securities. 2. A securities offer need not result in a sale in order to be integrated under Minn. Stat. § 80A.15, subd. 2(h)(10) (2006), and Rule 502 of Regulation D, 17 C.F.R. § 230.502 (2007).
MacRae - Minnesota Supreme Court Decision of July 31, 2008
The Minnesota State Supreme Court today ruled that, in a failure to diagnosis cancer case, the statute of limitations begins at the point when, looking at the unique circumstances of the particular case, “some compensable damage occurred as a result of the alleged negligent diagnosis.” After reviewing the particular facts of the case at hand, the court ruled in the case of Margaret MacRae v. Group Health Plan, et al., that the statute of limitations had not run before Mrs. MacRae brought the lawsuit alleging that her husband had died because of the failure to diagnose the cancer . MacRae died on August 26, 2005 and a medical malpractice lawsuit was brought in 2006. The defendants had won a ruling in a lower court that the four-year statute of limitations had begun in January of 2001, the date when the physician wrongly told Mr. MacRae his lesion was not cancer.
Acceptance Insurance - Minnesota Court of Appeals Decision of July 22, 2008
This appeal arises out of a declaratory judgment action initiated by appellant insurer to determine its liability to respondent building owner for damages resulting from the work of its insured, a roofing contractor. Appellant insurer challenges the district court‟s decision that liability for the underlying jury award against the roofing contractor for negligence is covered under its policy, that none of the policy exclusions are applicable, and that the bankruptcy of the roofing contractor does not relieve appellant of its obligations to respondent. Appellant also claims the recovery exceeds the policy limits. Respondent claims the policy limits do not apply to postjudgment interest. We affirm the district court‟s determinations that the bankruptcy does not relieve appellant of its obligation and that the policy exclusions are not applicable. Because the policy limits recovery for property damage to $1,000,000, we modify the jury award to comply with that limit. Finally, we determine that respondent is entitled to postjudgment interest without regard to the policy limits.
Baker - Minnesota Supreme Court Decision of June 26, 2008
The appreciation in the value of a nonmarital asset is marital solely to the extent that marital effort - the financial or nonfinancial efforts of one or both spouses during the marriage - has been expended to generate it, irrespective of whether a spouse has control over the asset. The appreciation in the value of the nonmarital portion of an investment portfolio is passive where no significant effort was diverted from the marriage to generate the increase. Only the financial and nonfinancial efforts of the spouses themselves are relevant to the assessment of marital effort. The district court abused its discretion by failing go have the husband account for attorney fees paid out of a marital checking account.
Fitzsimmons - Minnesota Court of Appeals Decision of May 6, 2008
This appeal arises from a district court order enforcing a pretrial order for payment of temporary spousal maintenance after the court entered a final decree of marital dissolution. Appellate argues that the district court did not have subject matter jurisdiction to enforce the pretrial order after final judgment had been entered. Eichenseer - Wisconsin Supreme Court Decision of May 6, 2008
This is an antitrust case. The plaintiffs accuse 24 taverns in the immediate vicinity of the University of Wisconsin campus in Madison, Wisconsin, and the Madison-Dane County Tavern League of horizontal price-fixing violations under Wis. Stat. §133.03(1) because, in response to the pressure from city government to ban all drink specials after 8 p.m. in the city, the 24 taverns agreed to eliminate drink specials at their establishments on Friday and Saturday nights after 8 p.m.
Port Authority - Minnesota Court of Appeals Decision of May 27, 2008
Respondent, the Port Authority of the City of St. Paul, lacking sufficient funds to pay the interest and principal owed to its bondholders, petitioned the district court for an instruction approving its plan to liquidate the repayment fund and discharge a percentage of its debt to all bondholders. Appellants, holders of the bonds with early experiation dates, moved the district court to dismiss respondent's petition for an instruction on the ground of lack of subject matter jurisdiction and to appoint a receiver; they also moved to vacate district court orders issued in response to respondent's petitions for instructions in 2002 and 2004. Appellants now challenge the denial of their motions. Schmidt - Minnesota Court of Appeals Decision of May 13, 2008
In this appeal from a marital-dissolution judgment, appellant wife argues that the district court abused its discretion in awarding maintenance and in denying appellant need-based attorney fees and erred in awarding respondent husband conduct-based attorney fees. We affirm the district court’s decisions regarding attorney fees and reverse the maintenance award and remand for further proceedings.
Reinke - Minnesota Court of Appeals Decision of May 13, 2008
Appellant challenges the grant of summary judgment to respondent, arguing that the district court erred by concluding that appellant's claim for underinsured-motorist benefits was barred by her failure to provide notice of the commencement of a lawsuit against the tortfeasor.
Corn Plus Cooperative - Eighth Circuit Decision of February 7, 2008
Corn Plus Cooperative brought a declaratory judgment claim against Continental Casualty Company and Lumbermens Mutual Casualty Company to enforce a settlement it had reached with its mechanical contractor who was insured by appellees. The district court determined that the insurance policies did not cover all of appellant's claims and thereafter granted summary judgment to the insurers, concluding that the settlement was unreasonable because it had failed to allocate between covered and noncovered damages. The court also refused to enforce an addendum to the settlement agreement for public policy reasons.
Mundy - Minnesota Workers' Compensation Court of Appeals Decision of January 31, 2008
The Workers' Compensation Court of Appeals affirmed the decision of the Compensation Judge that the evidence as a whole did not establish that the employee had permanent partial disability due to a non-work-related hearing loss so as to establish eligibility to claim permanent and total disability. Although the Judge made no specific finding, the Court went on to further state that the claim should have been barred by the principle of res judicata as this same claim had been denied in a previous hearing and that the introduction of a new medical report did not create a new cause of action. Olson - Minnesota Court of Appeals Decision of December 18, 2007
Dahl - Minnesota Court of Appeals Decision of December 4, 2007
Labore - Minnesota Court of Appeals Decision of October 23, 2007
Hallen-Hart - Minnesota Court of Appeals Decision of September 4, 2007
MacRae - Minnesota Court of Appeals Decision of August 28, 2007
Johnson-Heritage Millwork - Minnesota Court of Appeals Decision of July 17, 2007
Baker - Minnesota Court of Appeals Decision of July 3, 2007.
The Minnesota Court of Appeals reversed the trial court's holding that appreciation of a premarital retirement fund is non-marital property; instead, the appreciation is marital because husband and wife hired a financial advisor to manage the accounts, husband also actively managed the accounts himself by controlling and withdrawing funds and the funds in the accounts were always available as liquid assets which husband could withdraw at any time.
Brown Wilbert - Minnesota Court of Appeals Decision of July 3, 2007. The Minnesota Court of Appeals has held that, when a sales offering is made pursuant to Regulation D, 17 CFR sec 230.501-.508, any allegation of improper registration is covered by federal law and any claim for failure to properly register under state law or for recission under state law is preempted. under state law or for recission under state law is preempted.
Harrison - Minnesota Supreme Court Decision of June 21, 2007
Brown-Wilbert - Minnesota Supreme Court Decision of June 4, 2007
Flaherty - Minnesota Court of Appeals Decision of June 27, 2006
APAC - Minnesota Supreme Court Decision of May 24, 2007
Hull/Mohs/Stokely - Eighth Circuit Decision of May 2, 2007
Homolka - Minnesota Court of Appeals Decision of April 3, 2007
Dahl/Huber - Eighth Circuit Decision of February 28, 2007
Johnson/Newbold - Minnesota Court of Appeals Decision of February 27, 2007
Domestic Development - Minnesota Court of Appeals Decision of February 13, 2007
Toth/Arason - Minnesota Supreme Court Decision of October 12, 2006
Signature Bank - Minnesota Court of Appeals Decision of October 10, 2006
Rosemount/Renish - Minnesota Court of Appeals Decision of August 29, 2006
Brown/Wilbert II - Minnesota Court of Appeals Decision of June 13, 2006
Wert - Eighth Circuit Decision of May 17, 2006
Harrison - Minnesota Court of Appeals Decision of May 2, 2006
Cavanaugh/Cimarron I - Minnesota Court of Appeals Decision of March 21, 2006
APAC - Minnesota Court of Appeals Decision of March 14, 2006
Kieson/Gould - Eighth Circuit Decision of March 9, 2006