Court Opinion

ID: 9799054
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-31 05:43:45.510463+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:12:32.844610
License: Public Domain

SANDSTROM, Justice,
concurring.
[¶ 26] I agree that because this case is here on summary judgment and Haugland was entitled to all inferences favorable to him, including all inferences unfavorable to the City, in relation to the City’s claim it cannot find the crucial page of its official public record, summary judgment was not appropriate. The missing page would disclose whether the six square blocks — in whole or in part — were properly added to the renewal area in 1994.
[¶27] I write separately to note that decisions in other states are consistent with the result reached by our Court here and offer additional insight.
[¶ 28] When a document is lost or unaccounted for and a party is not at fault for the loss, a fact-finder should draw no unfavorable inference. Nevertheless, the question of fault is a question for the fact-finder:
Juries should judge credibility issues. If a jury concludes that a missing document was genuinely lost and that the document’s absence is not brought about by manipulation, then the jury should draw no inference against the non-producing party that the document would have been unfavorable.
The circumstances surrounding the missing nursing assessment form created a jury issue.
Richardson v. Miller, 44 S.W.3d 1, 28-29 (Tenn.Ct.App.2000) (citations omitted). “If you find ... the defendant intentionally lost or destroyed them to keep the information secret, you may draw an unfavorable inference.... However, if you find there was an innocent explanation for the missing records or documents, ... you may not draw such an inference.” Murray v. Developmental Servs. of Sullivan Cnty., Inc., 149 N.H. 264, 271, 818 A.2d 302, 309 (2003).
[¶ 29] In some cases, there is clearly an innocent explanation for missing documents. “For example, where the evidence is positive that the hospital had been destroyed by fire, such circumstance would adequately account for the loss of the original medical record without fault attributable to the hospital, and there would be no reason for the jury to be instructed on a presumption or inference arising from the loss.” Wuest ex rel. Carver v. McKennan Hosp., 2000 SD 151, ¶ 12, 619 N.W.2d 682. Nevertheless, a statement of “belief,” such as was provided in this case, is insufficient to prove a vote took place and is an issue which must go to a fact-finder:
The Town cannot survive a motion for summary judgment merely by offering evidence that the board members had “reason to believe” that they had formally taken action. Moreover, we cannot credit the board members’ mere assertion, unsupported by any documentation, *850that such a vote took place. Cf. Wis. Stat. § 60.33(2) (clerk responsible for attending meetings and keeping a full record of proceedings); Walsh v. State, 180 Wis. 356, 358, 192 N.W. 1004 (1923) (circuit court in error for allowing clerk to give oral testimony about whether board had granted liquor license when clerk had duty to record proceedings, no documentation existed, and absence of such documentation had not been accounted for); Chippewa Bridge Co., 122 Wis. at 103, 99 N.W. 603 (“[I]t is doubtful whether evidence from several interested persons should be held sufficient” to rebut the presumption that the absence of a record indicates a lack of proceedings.).
Town of E. Troy v. Vill. of E. Troy, 2005 WI App 233, 287 Wis.2d 829, 705 N.W.2d 906.
[¶ 30] Relative to a missing corporate document, a Minnesota court held similarly:
Based on the imperfect record, there is a genuine issue of material fact regarding when this write-off occurred.... Respondents are in the best position to produce evidence on this issue and yet they have presented no documentary evidence of when the loan write-off occurred. Respondents’ accountant signed an affidavit stating that he is “of the opinion” that the cab companies have followed all corporate formalities and have “maintained adequate and normal business records.” His affidavit goes on to state the [sic] he prepared year-end balance sheets and profit and loss statements for the cab companies but that he “cannot presently locate [his] file.” A reasonable finder of fact could draw a negative inference from respondents’ failure to produce corporate records to definitively demonstrate when the loan write-off occurred. Therefore, summary adjudication of this claim was improper.
Rydrych v. GK Cab Co., Inc., A13-0227, 2013 WL 5976078, at *6 (Minn.Ct.App. Nov. 12, 2013) (citation omitted).
[¶ 31] The city administrator in this case stated he believes that during the normal course of business, “the Bismarck City Commission passed the subject Resolution[.]” Nevertheless, Bismarck says it is unable to locate documentation proving this actually occurred. Summary judgment is inappropriate when one can draw reasonable inferences that support the positions of both sides in a controversy and a fact-finder could draw negative inferences from the absence of documentation or records in this case. See Vill. of E. Troy, 2005 WI App 233, 287 Wis.2d 829, 705 N.W.2d 906 (“[W]e cannot credit the board members’ mere assertion, unsupported by any documentation, that such a vote took place.”).
[¶ 32] I agree we must reverse the district court’s conclusion that Bismarck established an appropriate resolution to add the six city blocks to the renewal area.
[¶ 33] Dale V. Sandstrom