Minnesota Lawyer
Civil Precedential
Domestic Relations
Child Support; Emancipation
After the parties’ oldest of three children was emancipated, appellant father moved to modify his child support obligation. The District Court denied father’s motion, ruling that father showed a substantial change in circumstances but failed to show his existing support obligation was unreasonable and unfair. Father appealed, arguing (1) the District Court misinterpreted the child support modification statute, Minn. Stat. § 518A.39, to require him to show, in addition to the child’s emancipation, that his existing support obligation was unreasonable and unfair; and (2) even if Minn. Stat § 518A.39 did require him to show his existing support obligation was unreasonable and unfair, father made the required showing.
The Court of Appeals held that, when, based on a child’s emancipation, a child support obligor moves to reduce a support obligation that covers more than one child, the obligor must show both emancipation of the child at issue and that the existing support obligation is unreasonable and unfair. An exception to this rule is automatic termination of child support as provided by Minn. Stat. § 518A.39, subd. 5(a). Here, the record supported the District Court’s determination that father’s existing support obligation was not unreasonable and unfair. Affirmed.
A21-0068 Grogg v. Rech (Olmsted County)
Civil Nonprecedential
Domestic Relations
Child Protection; Termination of Parental Rights
Appellant-father challenged the District Court’s termination of his parental rights to his children, arguing that the county failed to make reasonable reunification efforts, that termination of his parental rights was not in the children’s best interests, and that he received ineffective assistance of counsel. Noting that father had contact with one child only two times during the pendency of the underlying proceeding, and that contact occurred during the child’s therapy sessions, the Court of Appeals concluded that the District Court’s finding that the county made reasonable efforts to reunite father with the children was supported by substantial evidence and was not clearly erroneous. Affirmed.
A21-0519 In re Welfare of Children of B.H.K. (Brown County)
Domestic Relations
Child Protection; Termination of Parental Rights
Appellant-mother challenged the termination of her parental rights, arguing that the District Court clearly erred in its findings of fact regarding respondent-county’s efforts to reunite the family and abused its discretion by determining that termination was in the child’s best interests. The Court of Appeals concluded that the evidence reasonably supports the District Court’s finding—including its express credibility determinations—that mother had a hand in creating the case plans, understood what they required, and received services that accommodated her disabilities. Affirmed.
A21-0611 In re Welfare of Child of H.R. (St. Louis County)
Domestic Relations
Child Protection; Termination of Parental Rights
On appeal from the District Court’s denial of the private petition filed by appellants biological father and stepmother to terminate respondent-mother’s parental rights, appellants argued that (1) the record did not support the District Court’s determinations that respondent rebutted the presumption that she was a palpably unfit parent and (2) the District Court failed to make adequate findings that denying appellants’ petition was in the best interests of the child. The Court of Appeals concluded that respondent introduced evidence sufficient to create a genuine issue of fact as to whether she was palpably unfit and the District Court was not required to make best-interests findings absent the existence of a statutory basis for termination. Affirmed.
A21-0416 In re Welfare of Child of M.H. (Olmsted County)
Domestic Relations
Child Protection; Termination of Parental Rights
On appeal from the termination of his parental rights, father argued that the record did not support the District Court’s conclusion that termination was in the best interests of the child and that the District Court failed to address the circumstances existing at the time of trial. The child protection investigation was opened after father was convicted of promotion of prostitution of a minor. The Court of Appeals concluded that the District Court did not abuse its discretion by terminating father’s parental rights based upon the balancing of the competing interests of father and the child with their interest in preserving the parent-child relationship. Affirmed.
A21-0438 In re Welfare of Child of M.L.H. (Hennepin County)
Landlord & Tenant
Security Deposit
After the termination of a tenancy, appellant-landlord withheld respondent-tenant’s entire security deposit to pay for lock replacement and cleaning costs. Respondent sued for the return of her security deposit, and the District Court awarded her a portion of the deposit. Pro se appellant challenged the District Court’s findings and alleged other errors in the proceedings. The Court of Appeals concluded that the District Court did not clearly err in its findings limiting appellant’s retention of the security deposit to $300. Affirmed.
A21-0083 Evans v. Niklas (Ramsey County)
Criminal Nonprecedential
Illegal Firearm Possession
Sufficiency of the Evidence
On appeal from an unlawful-possession-of-a-firearm conviction, defendant argued that the circumstantial evidence showing that he possessed a firearm was insufficient to prove his guilt. Noting that defendant could readily access the firearm in the vehicle, no other occupant of the car was in a similar position to access the firearm, and defendant was seen wearing the fanny pack that contained the firearm in a photograph, the Court of Appeals concluded that the evidence was sufficient to support the conviction. Affirmed.
A21-0114 State v. Dudley (Sherburne County)
Obstructing Arrest
Sufficiency of the Evidence
In this direct appeal from a judgment of conviction and sentences for obstructing arrest and disorderly conduct, defendant contended that the evidence was insufficient to sustain his conviction for the first offense and that the District Court erred in imposing sentences for both offenses. Defendant contended that he did not know that the officer he initially made contact with was a peace officer and that the state therefore failed to prove that he intentionally interfered with an officer’s duties. Noting that the circumstances surrounding the arrest, including defendant’s statement that the officer was “unlawfully detaining him,” were consistent with guilt because they indicated that defendant knew that the person he tussled with was a law-enforcement officer investigating him for an OFP violation, the Court of Appeals concluded that the evidence as a whole rendered defendant’s theory of innocence unreasonable. Affirmed.
A20-1575 State v. Dommer (Dakota County)
Postconviction Relief
Knaffla Bar
In this appeal from the District Court’s order denying his third petition for postconviction relief from his assault conviction, pro se petitioner argued that the District Court erred by concluding that his claims of ineffective assistance of counsel and newly discovered evidence were procedurally barred. The Court of Appeals concluded that claims related to an affidavit were barred by the Knaffla rule and his petition was otherwise time barred. Affirmed.
A21-0491 Reed v. State (Hennepin County)
Probation Revocation
Condition Violations
In this appeal from the District Court’s order revoking his probation, defendant argued that the District Court abused its discretion because it found that some of his probation violations were inexcusable and that the need for his confinement outweighed the policies favoring continued probation. Noting that defendant admitted that he did not have any good reasons for failing to attend outpatient treatment and make his appointments for drug testing, the Court of Appeals concluded that there was sufficient evidence that these violations were intentional and inexcusable. Affirmed.
A20-1457 State v. Davis (Itasca County)
Search Warrants
Multiple-Occupancy Residence
In this a direct appeal from convictions for three controlled-substance charges and one illegal firearm-possession charge, defendant argued that the District Court abused its discretion in denying his motion to suppress the results of a search of his residence or, alternatively, to convene a Franks hearing. Defendant also claimed the District Court abused its discretion by denying his request to introduce “reverse-Spreigl” evidence during trial. Defendant claimed the search warrant was invalid because the residence was a multiple-occupancy dwelling and the warrant lacked a sufficient description of the particular unit to be searched. Noting that the record supported the finding that there were insufficient indicators that the house was a multiple-occupancy residence at the time of the execution of the search warrant, the Court of Appeals concluded that the exception to the multiple-occupancy rule applied. Furthermore, defendant did not establish a sufficient basis to obtain a Franks hearing and any error by denying the “reverse-Spreigl” evidence was harmless. Affirmed.
A20-0892 State v. Burrell (Hennepin County)
Traffic Stops
Traffic Violations
Defendant challenged the District Court’s denial of her motion to suppress evidence obtained from a traffic stop that she contended violated her constitutional rights. Noting that the arresting officer observed defendant commit a traffic offense when she drove on the fog line at the edge of the road, the Court of Appeals concluded that the stop was lawful. Affirmed.
A21-0371 State v. Page (Jackson County)
