Court of Appeals Digest: April 22, 2019

Listen to this article

COURT OF APPEALS

Civil Published

Environmental Law

Water Appropriation

Appellants, the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (DNR) along with its commissioner of natural resources, a city, and a town, appealed from the District Court’s grant of declaratory and injunctive relief to respondents lake restoration non-profit and homeowners’ association on respondents’ claims that the DNR violated Minnesota Environmental Rights Act (MERA) and the common-law public-trust doctrine by making water-appropriation decisions that lowered the water level of White Bear Lake. Appellants challenged the District Court’s application of Minn. Stat. § 116B.03 and the public-trust doctrine to respondents’ claims, and argued that the District Court was without jurisdiction to make orders concerning the DNR’s issuance of well permits. They also challenged the District Court’s findings of fact and the scope of its remedial order as unsupported by the record.

The Court of Appeals held that (1) when a complaint alleging violations of MERA relates to conduct undertaken pursuant to a permit issued by the DNR, the only available relief is under Minn. Stat. § 116B.10, and the bar in Minn. Stat. § 116B.03 applies; and (2) in Minnesota, the common-law public-trust doctrine applies to navigable waters and does not apply to groundwater withdrawals. Reversed and remanded.

A18-0750 White Bear Lake Restoration Assoc. v. Minn. Dep’t of Natural Res. (Ramsey County)

https://mn.gov/law-library-stat/archive/ctappub/2019/OPa180750-042219.pdf

Civil Unpublished

Agriculture

Crop Damages

Appellant challenged the District Court’s calculation of his damages on his claim against respondent cooperative association alleging that a fertilizer spreader malfunctioned and caused crop damage and its judgment in favor of respondent on its breach-of-contract counterclaim. Appellant asserted that his damages should be calculated based on the difference between his projected yield goal of 130 bushels per acre and his actual yield. The Court of Appeals held that the District Court properly exercised its discretion by utilizing the adjuster’s method to calculate damages. Affirmed.

A18-1328 Olean v. Moose Lake CO-OPerative Assoc. (Carlton County)

https://mn.gov/law-library-stat/archive/ctapun/2019/OPa181328-042219.pdf

Breach of Contract

Damages

Appellant executed three related contracts with assignor, which was not a party to this appeal, for the purchase of a commercial building. Among other things, appellant signed a loan agreement in which it promised to pay a five percent late charge if any payments were received more than five days after the due date and to indemnify assignor for attorney fees incurred in enforcing the contracts. Assignor later assigned all of its rights and interest under the contracts to respondent assignee. One year later, appellant defaulted and assignee sued appellant and its owner, as the loan guarantor. In this appeal from the judgment entered in favor of assignee, appellants argued that the District Court erred in enforcing the late charge and in awarding attorney fees. The Court of Appeals determined that the late charge was not an invalid liquidated-damages clause and that the District Court did not abuse its discretion in awarding attorney fees. Affirmed.

A18-1205 Gamma Lending Omega, LLC v. Talon First Trust, LLC (Ramsey County)

https://mn.gov/law-library-stat/archive/ctapun/2019/OPa181205-042219.pdf

Civil Commitment

SDP; Sufficiency of the Evidence

Appellant challenged his conviction as a sexually dangerous person (SDP) on the grounds that the District Court erred in determining that he met the criteria for commitment and that he received ineffective assistance of counsel. The Court of Appeals concluded that the record supported the District Court’s determination that appellant met meets the criteria for commitment, noting that two experts testified that appellant was highly likely to reoffend, and the numeric value assigned by the experts was insufficient to render the finding clearly erroneous. Affirmed.

A18-1790 In re Civil Commitment of Grauberger (Lincoln County)

https://mn.gov/law-library-stat/archive/ctapun/2019/OPa181790-042219.pdf

Defamation

Maltreatment Reports

Appellant challenged the dismissal of his defamation and related claims arising out of the termination of his employment following a maltreatment investigation. He asserted that the District Court erred by dismissing counts one through ten of his third amended complaint, denying his efforts to file a fourth amended complaint and denying his motion for relief from judgment. The District Court concluded that appellant’s defamation claims failed because respondents had statutory immunity under Minn. Stat. § 626.557, subd. 5, which provides immunity to persons who make a good faith report or investigation concerning the maltreatment of a vulnerable adult. The Court of Appeals noted that there were no facts, consistent with appellant’s theory, that would constitute a lack of good faith, even though the maltreatment allegations were ultimately deemed unsubstantiated, and therefore appellant’s defamation claims were properly dismissed. Affirmed.

A18-1586 Zean v. Mary T. Inc. (Hennepin County)

https://mn.gov/law-library-stat/archive/ctapun/2019/OPa181586-042219.pdf

Default

Due Diligence

Appellant former employee challenged the District Court’s order granting respondent employer’s motion to vacate a default judgment in favor of appellant. The District Court granted the motion under Minn. R. Civ. P. 60.02 based on its determination that all four Finden factors were met. The Court of Appeals concluded that the District Court abused its discretion, noting that its express factual finding that respondent was not diligent precluded a determination that the due diligence Finden factor was met. Reversed.

A18-0892 Brown v. MSP Servs. LLC (Dakota County)

https://mn.gov/law-library-stat/archive/ctapun/2019/OPa180892-042219.pdf

Domestic Relations

Child Protection; Indian Children

Appellant-mother appealed from the District Court’s order and judgment terminating her parental rights to her son. Mother argued that the District Court abused its discretion by failing to grant her continuance request to determine whether the child was an “Indian child” as defined by the Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA) and the Minnesota Indian Family Preservation Act (MIFPA). She also argued that the record did not support the District Court’s finding of a statutory basis for termination of mother’s parental rights or that such termination was in the child’s best interests. The Court of Appeals held that whether a child is an “Indian child” under ICWA and MIFPA is based on a tribal-enrollment determination, and because the two tribes identified by mother had determined that the child was not eligible for enrollment, the District Court acted within its discretion when it denied mother’s continuance request. Affirmed.

A18-1778 In re Welfare of Child of M.B.B. (Redwood County)

https://mn.gov/law-library-stat/archive/ctapun/2019/OPa181778-042219.pdf

Domestic Relations

Child Protection; Termination of Parental Rights

Appellant-mother challenged the District Court’s termination of her parental rights, arguing that respondent-county did not make reasonable efforts to reunite the family and that the record did not establish that a statutory basis for termination exists. The county responded that it did assist appellant in obtaining housing, but that she was unable to maintain stable housing because she was repeatedly discharged from shelters and treatment programs based on her behavior. The Court of Appeals found that the records supported the District Court’s findings, noting that appellant had been unable to make progress in addressing her mental-health needs because she did not agree with the diagnoses. Affirmed.

A18-1968 In re Welfare of Children of H.R.S. (Anoka County)

https://mn.gov/law-library-stat/archive/ctapun/2019/OPa181968-042219.pdf

Domestic Relations

Dissolution; Parenting Time

Appellant-mother challenged the District Court’s award of unsupervised parenting time and conduct-based attorney fees to respondent-father. Mother argued that the District Court abused its discretion when it ignored alleged evidence that father sexually abused their minor child. Further, mother contended that both parties caused the delay in their marriage dissolution and thus conduct-based attorney fees were inappropriate. The District Court found that the testimony and evidence presented during trial did not support a finding that father abused the child. The Court of Appeals concluded that the record supported the District Court’s findings. Affirmed.

A18-1396 Seidel v. Seidel (Anoka County)

https://mn.gov/law-library-stat/archive/ctapun/2019/OPa181396-042219.pdf

Eminent Domain

Compensation

The state successfully petitioned the District Court to grant the Department of Transportation temporary and permanent easements over private property for improvements along a highway. The District Court’s appointed commissioners determined that the taking caused the property owners $390,904.29 in damages, mostly on the notion that the temporary easements authorized the state to engage in construction along the highway, thereby hypothetically (even if not actually) preventing access to the property. In the property owners’ cross appeal from that determination, the District Court entered partial summary judgment rejecting their temporary loss of-access theory. It also rejected their claim to construction interference damages. The Court of Appeals concluded that the property owners could not, at the compensation stage of the eminent domain proceeding, expand the scope of the state’s taking to include the alleged taking of their right of access, and they identified no construction interference damages. Affirmed.

A18-1280 State by Comm’r of Transp. v. Carlson (Lake County)

https://mn.gov/law-library-stat/archive/ctapun/2019/OPa181280-042219.pdf

Federal Employers’ Liability Act

Sanctions

Appellant-railroad challenged the District Court’s imposition of discovery sanctions and other adverse decisions that the District Court made in the course of a Federal Employers’ Liability Act (FELA) action brought by a former employee. The Court of Appeals found no abuse of discretion in the imposition of sanctions, noting that railroad’s discovery misconduct was pervasive, and that while the District Court may have been frustrated at railroad’s failure to produce 11 hydrocarbon cars after implying that it had the ability to do so, contrary to railroad’s contention, that did not mean that the sanctions order, which covered a wide range of discovery misconduct, constituted an abuse of discretion. Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded.

A18-0559, A18-1214, A18-1406 Kowalewski v. BNSF Ry. Co. (Hennepin County)

https://mn.gov/law-library-stat/archive/ctapun/2019/OPa180559-042219.pdf

Insurance

Underinsured-Motorist Coverage

Appellant was injured in an automobile collision. The driver of the other vehicle was at fault and was underinsured. Respondent insurer, which insured the vehicle that appellant was driving, paid her underinsured-motorist benefits of $100,000, which was the maximum amount of such coverage on the policy insuring the vehicle that she was driving. Appellant commenced this action to obtain additional underinsured-motorist benefits, up to the $250,000 limit on another respondent policy that insured another of her family’s vehicles. On cross-motions for summary judgment, the District Court ruled in favor of respondent. The Court of Appeals concluded that the maximum amount of appellant’s underinsured-motorist coverage was the maximum amount of coverage provided by the insurance policy for the vehicle she was occupying at the time of the collision. Affirmed.

A18-1204 Visser v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. (Hennepin County)

https://mn.gov/law-library-stat/archive/ctapun/2019/OPa181204-042219.pdf

Public Assistance

Section 8

Relator appealed the termination of her Section 8 housing assistance by respondent housing and redevelopment authority arguing that (1) her use of Section 8 assistance to rent her sister’s home was not grounds for terminating her assistance, and (2) the hearing officer’s decision was arbitrary and capricious. The Court of Appeals found that the record supported the conclusion that, by renting from her sister, relator violated her obligation to provide the authority true and complete information, warranting termination of her assistance. Affirmed.

A18-1158 Curtis v. Cloquet/Carlton Housing & Redevelopment Auth. (Cloquet/Carlton Housing & Redevelopment Auth.)

https://mn.gov/law-library-stat/archive/ctapun/2019/OPa181158-042219.pdf

Criminal Published

Entrapment

Appeals

Appellant acted as the middleman in a parking lot drug exchange between a drug seller and a confidential police informant after the informant had urged him many times to serve as the courier between the two. Appellant challenged his consequent drug sale charge by arguing that police had entrapped him. The District Court rejected the argument and found appellant guilty of first degree sale of a controlled substance.

The Court of Appeals held that, in an appeal challenging the District Court’s omnibus-hearing decision rejecting a criminal defendant’s entrapment defense, it would review factual findings for clear error and legal conclusions de novo. In the case at hand, the District Court erroneously held that appellant failed to show that the government induced him to participate in the transaction. Reversed and remanded.

A18-0343 State v. Garcia (Dakota County)

https://mn.gov/law-library-stat/archive/ctappub/2019/OPa180343-042219.pdf

Criminal Unpublished

Plea Withdrawal

Accuracy

Appellant challenged the denial of his postconviction petition without an evidentiary hearing. Appellant argued that his guilty plea to charges of assault was invalid due to his lack of memory and contradictory statements at the plea hearing and the District Court’s failure to advise him of his trial rights. The Court of Appeals noted that the record belied appellant’s claim that he could not remember the alleged assault because he “blacked out.” Affirmed.

A18-1099 Lewis v. State (Ramsey County)

https://mn.gov/law-library-stat/archive/ctapun/2019/OPa181099-042219.pdf

Prosecutorial Misconduct

Plain Error

In this direct appeal from final judgment of conviction and sentence for second-degree assault, appellant argued that he was entitled to a new trial because the prosecutor committed unobjected-to prejudicial misconduct amounting to plain error affecting his substantial rights by (1) vouching for the truthfulness of a state witness, (2) disparaging the defense, and (3) encouraging the jury to use evidence of appellant’s post-offense assault for prohibited purposes. The Court of Appeals concluded that appellant failed to show that his substantial rights were affected by any alleged misconduct. Affirmed.

A18-0894 State v. Beliad (Hennepin County)

https://mn.gov/law-library-stat/archive/ctapun/2019/OPa180894-042219.pdf

Restitution

Amendments

In this consolidated appeal from a restitution order and an amended restitution order, appellant, a juvenile, challenged the amendment of restitution, arguing that the District Court erred in increasing the amount of restitution. The Court of Appeals found that the record supported the District Court’s finding that the court did not know of an insurance company’s claim at the time of the disposition and its conclusion that the criteria of Minn. Stat. § 645.26, subd. 1, for amending a restitution award had been met. Affirmed.

A18-1347, A18-1372 In re Welfare of C.A.B.H. (Faribault County)

https://mn.gov/law-library-stat/archive/ctapun/2019/OPa181347-042219.pdf

Searches

Dog Sniffs

In this direct appeal from a stay of adjudication, appellant argued that the District Court erred by denying his motion to suppress drugs found during the execution of a search warrant at his apartment. He argued that the underlying search-warrant application was based, in part, on an unconstitutional dog sniff and that without the information regarding the dog sniff, the warrant was not supported by probable cause. The Court of Appeals held that the dog sniff was lawful, concluding that police had reasonable, articulable suspicion to conduct the dog sniff in the common areas of appellant’s apartment building based on information from an informant. Affirmed.

A18-0878 State v. Vagle (Hennepin County)

https://mn.gov/law-library-stat/archive/ctapun/2019/OPa180878-042219.pdf

Seizure

Reasonable, Articulable Suspicion

Appellant challenged the District Court’s pretrial denial of his motion to suppress evidence following his conviction of possession of a firearm by an ineligible person. Appellant contended that the officers’ seizure of him was based only on his general resemblance to a homicide suspect, who had been described as a black male in his mid-twenties who was five feet, eight inches tall, average build, and had a medium afro and goatee, and that the officers lacked sufficient reasonable, articulable suspicion to seize him. The Court of Appeals concluded that, based on appellant’s similarity to the physical description and photograph of the suspect in addition to his location in the area close to where the homicide occurred, the officers had sufficient reasonable, articulable suspicion to support the stop and seizure. Affirmed.

A18-0798 State v. Hawkins (Ramsey County)

https://mn.gov/law-library-stat/archive/ctapun/2019/OPa180798-042219.pdf

Sentencing

Conditional Release

In this consolidated appeal, appellant argued that the District Court lacked jurisdiction to reimpose a ten-year conditional-release term, and if reimposed, the conditional-release term invalidated appellant’s guilty plea to charges of failing to register as a predatory offender. The Court of Appeals held that the District Court retained jurisdiction to affirm appellant’s ten-year conditional-release term, noting that the conditional-release term was authorized when it was imposed, appellant did not have a crystallized expectation of finality in a sentence that did not include a conditional-release term, and the District Court never vacated appellant’s conditional-release term. Furthermore, the plea hearing and petition indicated that appellant did not plead guilty based on any promises that went unfulfilled. Affirmed.

A18-1318, A18-1513 Queen v. State (Hennepin County)

https://mn.gov/law-library-stat/archive/ctapun/2019/OPa181318-042219.pdf

Sentencing

Single Behavioral Incident

Appellant appealed after the District Court found him guilty of attempted third- and fourth-degree criminal sexual conduct; electronic solicitation of a child to engage in sexual conduct (solicitation); electronic communication with a child describing sexual conduct (communication); and electronic distribution of any material, language, or communication that relates to or describes sexual conduct to a child (distribution). He argued that three convictions must be vacated as lesser-included offenses, and cannot be sentenced in any event, because they were part of a single behavioral incident. Finally, appellant argued that the District Court erred when it imposed lifetime conditional release because he was convicted of attempted third-degree criminal sexual conduct. The Court of Appeals held that the electronic-distribution charge was an included offense of the solicitation charge, all five offenses were part of one behavioral incident, and the District Court erred when it imposed a lifetime conditional release. Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded.

A18-0850 State v. Degroot (Nobles County)

https://mn.gov/law-library-stat/archive/ctapun/2019/OPa180850-042219.pdf

Threats of Violence

Sufficiency of the Evidence

Appellant challenged his convictions of threats of violence and third-degree criminal sexual conduct, arguing that they were not supported by sufficient evidence. Appellant also argued that the District Court erred in sentencing him for third-degree criminal sexual conduct and felony pattern-of-stalking conduct because the court sentenced him in the wrong chronological order and his convictions arose out of the same behavioral incident. The Court of Appeals concluded that the victim’s testimony provided sufficient evidence to support the convictions, noting that the District Court found her credible, despite appellant’s allegations of her prior recantations and her inconsistent timeline of events. Affirmed.

A18-1019 State v. Renner (Polk County)

https://mn.gov/law-library-stat/archive/ctapun/2019/OPa181019-042219.pdf

Traffic Stops

Expansion of Scope

Following his conviction of two counts of driving while impaired (DWI), appellant challenged the District Court’s denial of his motion to suppress evidence that was obtained as a result of a traffic stop. Appellant argued that the officer impermissibly expanded the scope of the stop by conducting a weapons frisk when there was no reasonable basis to believe that he was armed and dangerous. The District Court found the expansion warranted based on appellant’s movements throughout the cab of his pickup along with his furtive movements, agitation, and refusal to comply with the officer’s initial order for him to exit the vehicle. The Court of Appeals held that the totality of the circumstances supported a reasonable belief that appellant was armed and dangerous. Affirmed.

A18-0836 State v. Rusthoven (Swift County)

https://mn.gov/law-library-stat/archive/ctapun/2019/OPa180836-042219.pdf

Traffic Stops

Traffic Violations

Appellant challenged his conviction of being an ineligible person in possession of a firearm and argued that the District Court erred in denying his motion to suppress. He argued that (1) police lacked a reasonable, articulable suspicion of criminal activity when an officer stopped the car in which appellant was riding; and (2) law enforcement was not authorized to search the car after arresting the driver for driving while impaired (DWI). The Court of Appeals concluded that police had reasonable articulable suspicion for the stop based on the driver’s turning twice without signaling at least 100 feet before doing so. Furthermore, the search incident to arrest was lawful under Arizona v. Gant, 556 U.S. 332 (2009). Affirmed.

A18-0803 State v. Giles (McLeod County)

https://mn.gov/law-library-stat/archive/ctapun/2019/OPa180803-042219.pdf