Court Opinion

ID: 9542490
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 16:34:59.815578+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:08:08.787192
License: Public Domain

HARTEN, Judge
(concurring in part and dissenting in part).
I concur with the court to the extent of its affirmance; but because the court stretches beyond the factual record to modify its affir-mance, I respectfully dissent from the modification.
This case was presented to the district court upon formal Stipulation of Facts, which states, among other things, that
[t]he parties agree that the stipulated facts and exhibits are sufficient to form a basis for a judicial determination of the respective rights of the parties herein and that no additional facts or evidence will be filed, submitted nor argued to the Court. (Emphasis added).
Nowhere in the stipulation of facts or exhibits is there mention of the amount of attorney fees and costs of collection for the future medical expenses included in the minor settlement. It is obvious why the district court did not consider the issue — it was purposefully not presented to the district court. As appellant’s counsel indicated at oral argument, not raising the issue in the district court, or on appeal, was a deliberate choice undertaken as a matter of litigation strategy. We routinely decline to address issues for the first time on appeal. See Thiele v. Stich, 425 N.W.2d 580, 582 (Minn.1988) (appellate court reviews only issues presented to and considered by district court).
*87In its opinion, the court indicates that “the parties fully addressed the issue to our satisfaction.” In fact, the issue was introduced and addressed at oral argument by pointed questions from the bench. At no time did counsel agree to extend the stipulated record.
Because the court modifies on ah issue that was neither considered in the district court, nor raised or briefed on appeal, I would affirm the district court judgment in its entirety.