Court of Appeals Digest: Aug. 26

Published Civil Opinions

Appeals – Time Limits

Following a judgment on litigation costs and disbursements, appellant brought a motion for reconsideration and the District Court amended the judgment and directed entry of a second judgment on costs and disbursements. The District Court later issued an order vacating the second cost judgment and reaffirming the first cost judgment, holding that it lacked jurisdiction to amend the first cost judgment. Appellant challenged the court’s decision to vacate the second cost judgment. The Court of Appeals held that neither requesting leave to file a motion for reconsideration nor filing a motion for reconsideration tolls or extends the time to appeal an order or judgment or prevents it from becoming final. Affirmed.

A13-0304 N. Star Int’l Trucks, Inc. v. Navistar, Inc. (Hennepin County)

Click for Full Text

Unpublished Civil Opinions

Closing Arguments – Borne Out by the Record

In this medical-negligence action, appellants challenged the District Court’s denial of their motion for a new trial following a jury verdict in favor of respondent clinic. Appellants contended that the District Court abused its discretion by prohibiting closing argument concerning a medical record admitted into evidence. Appellants contended that the District Court abused its discretion in prohibiting their attorney from commenting during closing argument on the doctor’s progress note stating that appellant underwent “FESS for polypectomy/chronic sinusitis.” The Court of Appeals held that any testimony explaining the note was not “borne out by the record” and the District Court properly exercised its discretion in precluding counsel from using the record to draw the inference for the jury that a polypectomy occurred. Affirmed.

A13-0297 Vacik v. Park Nicollet Clinic (Hennepin County)

Click for Full Text

Dismissal of Action – Failure to Comply with Order

Appellant challenged the District Court’s dismissal of its claim with prejudice under Minn. R. Civ. P. 41.02(a). The District Court found that appellant violated a court order by failing to post the bond ordered and that respondent city has been prejudiced by appellant’s failure because the city paid for the improvements with city funds. The Court of Appeals held that the record supported the District Court’s finding of prejudice to the city and that the District Court’s findings regarding appellant’s actions and inactions since entering into the agreement with the city show that appellant’s delay was unreasonable and inexcusable. Affirmed.

A12-2323 Walker Props. of Woodbury II, LLC v. City of Woodbury (Washington County)

Click for Full Text

Domestic Relations – Child Custody; Schools

Appellant challenged the District Court’s order concerning which school the parties’ minor child should attend and its corresponding order modifying the parties’ parenting-time schedule. Appellant challenged the orders on the grounds that the District Court: (1) abused its discretion in ordering that the child attend school in Edina; (2) erred in failing to apply an endangerment standard to respondent’s motion or hold an evidentiary hearing; and (3) demonstrated improper bias against appellant. The Court of Appeals held that the District Court applied the correct legal standards, properly considered the child’s best interests in ordering the school change and in modifying the parenting-time schedule, and did not show improper bias. Affirmed.

A12-1876 Himley v. Himley (Sherburne County)

Click for Full Text

Domestic Relations – CHIPS; Voluntary Placement

Appellant challenged the District Court’s denial of his motion to vacate the order dismissing his petition to have himself declared a child in need of protection or services (CHIPS). The Court of Appeals held that because respondent Ramsey County Child Protection Services has removed appellant from an allegedly abusive situation into out-of-home placement and is providing him with services, appellant was already receiving both services and protection. Affirmed.

A13-0395 In re Welfare of Child of T.L. (Ramsey County)

Click for Full Text

Domestic Relations – Termination of Parental Rights; Neglect of Parental Duties

Appellant challenged the termination of his parental rights, arguing that the record did not support the District Court’s determinations that he (1) neglected his parental duties, (2) is a palpably unfit parent, and (3) failed to correct the conditions leading to out-of-home placement. The District Court found that the children have complex special needs that are challenging to the most capable parent. Because appellant rejects the existence of any medical condition, he is unwilling and unable to insure that the children receive necessary treatments. The District Court concluded that respondent’s efforts were reasonable, but appellant failed to meet his requirements as a parent. The Court of Appeals held that the record supported the District Court’s findings. Affirmed.

A13-0454 In re Welfare of Children of T.L.D.T. (Hennepin County)

Click for Full Text

Employment – Wages

Appellants, a law firm and its owner, challenged the District Court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of respondents on breach-of-contract claims asserted by respondents, two attorneys who performed legal work for appellants. Appellants asserted that the District Court erred by determining that (1) one of the respondents was an employee and is entitled to wages owed and costs under Minn. Stat. sec. 181.14, despite appellants’ good-faith belief that no wages were owed; and (2) the other respondent was an independent contractor and is entitled to amounts owed for services rendered, despite appellants’ assertion that the right to payment was contingent on appellants being paid for that work by their clients. The Court of Appeals reviewed that record and found that there were no material facts in dispute and the District Court did not err in applying the law. Affirmed.

A13-0187 Kryzer v. Knaak (Ramsey County)

Click for Full Text

Employment Discrimination – Prima Facie Case

In this appeal from a judgment dismissing appellant’s claims of age and disability discrimination in violation of the Minnesota Human Rights Act (MHRA), appellant argued that he established prima facie cases of age and disability discrimination and that the employer’s proffered reason for terminating his employment was pretextual. Appellant’s supervisor decided to terminate appellant because appellant was intoxicated at work. The supervisor testified that neither appellant’s age nor his workers’ compensation status was a factor in the decision. Appellant argued that his behavior was the result of pain and that evidence of his intoxication was discredited at trial. The Court of Appeals held that ample evidence supported a finding that the supervisor had a good-faith belief that appellant was intoxicated at work when she made the decision to terminate his employment. Affirmed.

A12-2203 Brown-Rojina v. Minneapolis Glass Co. (Hennepin County)

Click for Full Text

Insurance – Interpretation of Policy

Appellant challenged the District Court’s summary dismissal of his lawsuit seeking death benefits under a life-insurance policy issued to his spouse. Appellant argued that a three-year limitation period is unreasonable in any case involving a determination of disability. He argued that proof of disability is an evolving process that should not be constrained by unreasonably short time limitations. The Court of Appeals held that because the policy allows reasonable extensions of the deadline for submission of proof of claim, which in turn extends the deadline for initiation of legal action, the policy does not unreasonably constrain the time necessary to prove the existence of a disability. Affirmed.

A13-0494 Butler v. Sun Life Fin. (U.S.) Servs. Co. (Clay County)

Click for Full Text

Orders for Protection – Domestic Abuse

On appeal from the District Court’s grant of an order for protection (OFP), appellant-mother argued that the District Court abused its discretion by granting the OFP. The Court of Appeals held that under current Minnesota law it is insufficient to establish “domestic abuse” under the Domestic Abuse Act by merely demonstrating that domestic abuse occurred within a family or household. It concluded that the record did not establish that appellant committed “domestic abuse” against the child as defined by the Domestic Abuse Act. Therefore, the District Court abused its discretion by granting the OFP against mother. Reversed.

A13-0283 Hudson v. Hudson (Olmsted County)

Click for Full Text

Reporting Unlawful Conduct – Good Faith

Appellant moved unsuccessfully for summary-judgment dismissal of respondent’s claims on grounds of immunity under Minn. Stat. sec. 554.03, under Minn. Stat. sec. 604A.34, the Noerr-Pennington doctrine, and the qualified-privilege doctrine. He challenged the denial of his motion. The Court of Appeals held that because Minn. Stat. sec. 604A.34 is both more specific and later enacted, it applied to appellant’s situation. The District Court concluded that summary judgment was precluded by genuine issues of material fact as to whether appellant acted in good faith when he urged law enforcement to charge respondent. The Court of Appeals concluded that there were fact issues as to why appellant reported the matter to law enforcement and whether he acted in good faith. Affirmed.

A13-0105 Nielsen v. Bohnen (Washington County)

Click for Full Text

Unemployment Benefits – Available for Suitable Employment

Relator challenged the unemployment-law judge’s (ULJ) decision that she is not eligible for unemployment benefits, arguing substantial evidence does not support the ULJ’s finding that she is unavailable for suitable employment. Relator is enrolled in a master’s degree program in clinical psychology. The ULJ found that relator was not willing to rearrange her class schedule to accept employment. The Court of Appeals held that substantial evidence supported this finding. Affirmed.

A13-0019 Asare-Davis v. Dep’t of Employment & Econ. Dev.)

Click for Full Text

Unemployment Benefits – Deferred-Bonus Payments

On certiorari appeal from an ineligibility determination, relator contended that the unemployment-law judge erred by concluding that a deferred-bonus payment and a settlement agreement delayed his eligibility for unemployment benefits. The Court of Appeals concluded that the unemployment-law judge correctly determined that relator’s benefits were delayed based on the deferred bonus, but erred by determining that benefits are delayed based on the settlement agreement. However, the judge’s error had no bearing on the final determination that relator was ineligible for benefits during his benefit year. Affirmed as modified.

A13-0005 Moore v. Waterstone Capital Mgmt. L.P. (Dep’t of Employment & Econ. Dev.)

Click for Full Text

Unemployment Benefits – Employment Misconduct

Relator was employed as a forklift operator for respondent, which terminated his employment because he failed to report an incident of property damage. An unemployment law judge determined that relator engaged in employment misconduct and, thus, is ineligible for unemployment benefits. The Court of Appeals held that the record supported the ULJ’s conclusion that Jennings engaged in employment misconduct. Affirmed.

A12-2275 Jennings v. Menasha Packaging Co. (Dep’t of Employment & Econ. Dev.)

Click for Full Text

Unemployment Benefits – Quit

Relator challenged the determination by the unemployment-law judge (ULJ) that she was ineligible for benefits because she voluntarily quit employment without a good reason caused by the employer, arguing that she was forced to quit because of her homelessness. The Court of Appeals noted that DEED is only permitted to pay unemployment benefits to applicants who meet the statutory eligibility requirements, and that, although relator’s situation is unfortunate, it had no authority to award her unemployment benefits. Affirmed.

A13-0237 Walker v. TJX Co. (Dep’t of Employment & Econ. Dev.)

Click for Full Text

Unemployment Benefits – Timely Appeals

Relator appealed an unemployment law judge’s order affirming the dismissal of relator’s administrative appeal as untimely, arguing that there were extenuating medical circumstances that should excuse his untimely appeal. The Court of Appeals concluded that, while it appears that relator was faced with frightening medical conditions that could have caused confusion, distress, and distraction, there are simply no exceptions to the 20-day appeal deadline. Affirmed.

A13-0439 Modjeski v. Winona Mech., Inc. (Dep’t of Employment & Econ. Dev.)

Click for Full Text

Published Criminal Opinions

Sentencing – Downward Durational Departures

Appellant challenged his executed 60-month sentence of imprisonment for possession of a firearm by an ineligible person, arguing that the District Court erred by concluding that Minn. Stat. sec. 609.1055 does not authorize a District Court to stay a prison sentence when an executed sentence of imprisonment is mandatory under Minn. Stat. sec. 609.11, subd. 8(b). The Court of Appeals held that the District Court does not have discretion under Minn. Stat. sec. 609.1055 to grant a downward dispositional departure to a defendant with severe and persistent mental illness when an executed sentence of imprisonment is mandatory under Minn. Stat. sec. 609.11, subd. 8(b). Affirmed.

A13-0083 State v. Mayl (Hennepin County)

Click for Full Text

Unpublished Criminal Opinions

Continuances – Obtaining Counsel

In this appeal from a conviction of aiding and abetting felony theft, appellant argued that the District Court abused its discretion when it failed to consider appellant’s requests for a continuance to secure private counsel and failed to inquire how appellant wished to proceed at appellant’s sentencing hearing. The Court of Appeals noted that a District Court has discretion to deny an indigent defendant’s request for a continuance to obtain private counsel when the motion is made at or near the time of trial; the defendant is represented by competent, prepared, court-appointed counsel; and no private lawyer is available and willing to represent the defendant. In this case, appellant was represented by competent counsel during plea negotiations and at the sentencing, did not claim any error or prejudice with respect to the plea or sentence, and did not identify a private attorney who was available and willing to represent appellant. Affirmed.

A12-2220 State v. Thavong (Olmsted County)

Click for Full Text

Criminal Sexual Conduct – Sufficiency of the Evidence

On appeal from his conviction of first-degree criminal sexual conduct, appellant argued that the evidence was insufficient to sustain the verdict and that the District Court abused its discretion in its evidentiary rulings. First, appellant argued that the state failed to prove that the case was properly venued; and second, he contended that the state failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the victim was physically injured, an element of the offense of which appellant was convicted. The Court of Appeals held that there was sufficient evidence of venue and noted that the photographs of the victim taken in the emergency room show a blackened eye, a bruise on her arm, and visible swelling on her face. This evidence is sufficient to show “personal injury” within the meaning of the statute. Affirmed.

A12-1312 State v. Fisherman (Itasca County)

Click for Full Text

Hearsay – Residual Exception

In these consolidated direct and postconviction appeals, appellant argued, inter alia, that the District Court abused its discretion by admitting the victim’s out-of-court statements to a child-protection investigator. The District Court granted the state’s motion to admit the victim’s out-of-court statements to a child protection investigator because the District Court determined that the statements were admissible under Minn. R. Evid. 807. The Court of Appeals held that the victim’s statements to the investigator had sufficient guarantees of trustworthiness, and thus the District Court did not abuse its discretion by admitting the statements. Affirmed.

A12-0072, A12-2326 State v. LaDue (Mille Lacs County)

Click for Full Text

Impeachment Evidence – Prior Convictions

Appellant argued that his conviction of aiding and abetting first-degree aggravated robbery should be set aside because the District Court abused its discretion by admitting evidence of two of appellant’s prior felony convictions. The District Court held that the state could impeach appellant with two of his prior convictions: a felony domestic assault and felony theft. The Court of Appeals held that the District Court did not err by finding that, under the whole-person rationale, appellant’s prior convictions had impeachment value. Affirmed.

A12-1562 State v. Chappell (Stearns County)

Click for Full Text

Murder – Sufficiency of the Evidence

Appellant challenged his conviction of second-degree murder, claiming that there was insufficient evidence to support the conviction because his level of voluntary intoxication vitiated his ability to form the requisite intent to commit murder. Specific to appellant’s assertions that he was intoxicated as a result of smoking PCP-laced cigarettes, consuming marijuana, and imbibing alcohol, the District Court determined that appellant’s testimony was “incredible,” “self-serving,” “uncorroborated,” and displayed a “selective memory.” The Court of Appeals concluded that, given this carefully detailed explanation, it would defer to the District Court’s assessment. Affirmed.

A12-1593 State v. Powell (Hennepin County)

Click for Full Text

Offering Forged Check – Knowledge & Intent

Appellant challenged his conviction of offering a forged check in violation of Minn. Stat. sec. 609.631, subd. 3, arguing that there was insufficient evidence to establish knowledge and intent. The Court of Appeals held that the circumstances proved did not support any reasonable, rational inference inconsistent with guilt, there was sufficient evidence to demonstrate appellant’s knowledge and intent to offer a forged check. Affirmed.

A12-2294 State v. Moody (Ramsey County)

Click for Full Text

Postconviction Relief – Interests of Justice

Appellant challenged the District Court’s denial of his petition for postconviction relief and motion to withdraw an Alford plea. Appellant asserted that “the interests of justice require the court to consider the claim.” The Court of Appeals disagreed, noting that appellant’s claim was known or should have been known at the time of his direct appeal. Thus, appellant’s claim was Knaffla-barred unless an exception applies. Appellant argued that the interests of justice warrant relief. But the Court of Appeals held that appellant’s claim lacked merit. Affirmed.

A12-1313 Buermann v. State (Otter Tail County)

Click for Full Text

Right to Counsel – Restitution Hearing

Appellant challenged the District Court’s denial of his petition for postconviction relief and its failure to appoint counsel to represent appellant at a restitution hearing. The state conceded that, in light of this court’s recent decision in State v. Maddox, 825 N.W.2d 140 (Minn. App. 2013), appellant was entitled to representation in the restitution proceedings. The Court of Appeals concluded that the District Court erred when it denied appellant’s request for counsel at his restitution hearing. Reversed and remanded.

A13-0142 Mohamud v. State (Olmsted County)

Click for Full Text

Searches – Resisting Arrest

On appeal from his conviction of possession of a firearm by an ineligible person, appellant contended that the District Court erred in denying his motion to suppress the gun. He asserted that police officers violated his constitutional rights when they seized him without reasonable, articulable suspicion that he was involved in criminal activity. The Court of Appeals held that police officers found the firearm during a lawful search following appellant’s flight from officers, and thus affirmed the District Court’s denial of appellant’s motion to suppress the gun and his conviction. Affirmed.

A12-1855 State v. Pirtle (Ramsey County)

Click for Full Text

Searches – Scope of Consent

Appellant state challenged a pretrial order suppressing evidence and dismissing for lack of probable cause the complaint that charged respondent with aiding an offender to avoid arrest-harbor/conceal in violation of Minn. Stat. sec. 609.495, subd. 1(a). The state argued, inter alia, the police did not exceed the scope of respondent’s consent to search his apartment. The Court of Appeals noted that when an officer tried the bathroom door and discovered it was locked, respondent specifically told the officer not to disturb the person in there, clearly limiting the officer’s permissible conduct. The Court of Appeals held that because a reasonable person could understand from the exchange between respondent and the officer that once the officer looked and did not see the offender, respondent expected the officer to leave, and the Court of Appeals could not say the District Court clearly and unequivocally erred. Affirmed.

A12-2318 State v. Klang (Kandiyohi County)

Click for Full Text

Sentencing – Downward Durational Departures

Appellant challenged his sentence, arguing that the District Court abused its discretion when it denied his motion for a downward durational departure. The Court of Appeals noted that even if any of the mitigating factors had been present, the fact that a mitigating factor was clearly present does not obligate the court to impose a shorter term than the presumptive term. Thus, it would not have been an abuse of discretion to impose the minimum presumptive sentence even with the presence of mitigating factors. Affirmed.

A12-1750 State v. King (Becker County)

Click for Full Text

Speeding – Sufficiency of the Evidence

Pro se appellant challenged his petty misdemeanor conviction of speeding. Appellant contended that the evidence here was insufficient because he testified that he was 100% certain that he was not speeding. Using a radar unit, an officer found that appellant was going 60 mph in a 40-mph zone. The Court of Appeals held that the evidence was sufficient to support the conviction. Affirmed.

A12-1387 State v. Wajda (Hennepin County)

Click for Full Text

‘Spreigl’ Evidence – Case in Chief

Appellant challenged his conviction of two counts of financial exploitation of a vulnerable adult. Appellant argued that he was denied a fair trial when the state introduced Spreigl evidence without complying with the procedural requirements for introducing this evidence. The Court of Appeals held that the evidence was not offered in the state’s case in chief, and was thus not Spreigl evidence. Affirmed.

A12-1994 State v. Lewis (Clay County)

Click for Full Text

Stays of Adjudication – Conditions

The Court of Appeals was asked to decide whether a prosecutor can condition consent to a stay of adjudication on specific sanctions that control the disposition of the sentencing judge. It concluded that, under the facts of this case, the state properly conditioned its consent to the stay of adjudication. Reversed and remanded.

A13-0084 State v. Matzer (Isanti County)

Click for Full Text

Traffic Stops – Reasonable, Articulable Suspicion

Appellant challenged his conviction of felony test refusal, arguing that the police officer lacked reasonable, articulable suspicion to justify the traffic stop and that the District Court therefore erred by denying his suppression motion. Appellant asserted that because the law only requires that a driver stop when emerging from an alley before crossing a sidewalk, and because the state did not present any evidence that a sidewalk exists at the intersection of the alley in question and the street, the state failed to establish a legal basis for the stop. The Court of Appeal held that the District Court’s inference that a sidewalk exists at the intersection of the alley in question and the street was not clearly erroneous. Affirmed.

A12-1752 State v. Hollerich (Nicollet County)

Click for Full Text

Special Term Opinions

Adoptions – Appeals

This appeal was before a special term panel of this court to determine whether the notice of appeal was timely filed. The Court of Appeals held that in an adoption proceeding, any appeal must be taken within 30 days, as provided by Rule 48.02, subdivision 2, of the Minnesota Rules of Adoption Procedure. The 60-day period in Rule 104.01 of the Minnesota Rules of Civil Appellate Procedure and section 259.63 of the Minnesota Statutes does not apply. Secondly, the requirement in Rule 10.04 of the Minnesota Rules of Adoption Procedure that the District Court administrator “shall” use a notice-of-filing form developed by the state court administrator is directory rather than mandatory. If a District Court administrator uses a form other than the form developed by the state court administrator pursuant to Rule 10.04, the District Court administrator’s notice of filing nonetheless may be effective to limit the time in which a party may appeal. Appeal dismissed.

A13-0774 In re Petition of M.O. (Morrison County)

Click for Full Text

Interlocutory Review – Piecemeal Review

This appeal is taken from a partial judgment that determined some but not all of respondent’s claims and all of appellants’ counterclaims. The District Court stated that there is no just reason for delay and directed entry of final partial judgment pursuant to Rule 54.02 of the Minnesota Rules of Civil Procedure. The Court of Appeals questioned its jurisdiction over the appeal and asked the parties to submit memoranda on the question whether the District Court properly directed entry of a final partial judgment. It then held that the District Court erred by directing entry of final partial judgment pursuant to Rule 54.02 of the Minnesota Rules of Civil Procedure because the benefits of interlocutory appellate review do not outweigh the general policy against piecemeal appellate review and because neither party will be prejudiced by the absence of interlocutory appellate review. Appeal dismissed.

A13-0643 Sterling State Bank v. Maas Commercial Props., LLC (Dakota County)

Click for Full Text