Court of Appeals Digest: March 21, 2022

Civil Nonprecedential

Domestic Relations

Child Support; Income

Following a marriage dissolution, appellant-father and respondent-mother sought a court order to determine child custody, child support, and spousal maintenance. The District Court ordered child support from father, concluded that it was in the children’s best interests to maintain their current parenting time schedule, and denied father’s spousal maintenance request. Father appealed. The Court of Appeals concluded that the record supported the District Court’s income calculations, the District Court properly analyzed the best interests factors for child custody, and the District Court was not biased against father. But the District Court did not consider the marital standard of living when reviewing father’s request for temporary spousal maintenance. Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded.

A21-0774 Mills v. Mills (Anoka County)

Domestic Relations

Dissolution; Marital Assets

Appellant appealed from the District Court’s judgment and decree dissolving her marriage to respondent, arguing that the District Court abused its discretion by making an inequitable division of marital property. The Court of Appeals concluded that the District Court’s erroneous failure to treat respondent’s pension benefits as marital property subject to division, treatment of debt incurred during the marriage as appellant’s individual debt, and reliance on findings unsupported by the record resulted in an inequitable division of marital property. Reversed in part and remanded.

A21-0637 Brown v. Brown (St. Louis County)

Harassment Restraining Orders

Evidence

Pro se appellant challenged the District Court’s order granting respondent’s petition for a harassment restraining order (HRO), arguing that the District Court improperly excluded evidence and violated his due-process rights. Noting that appellant tried to question respondent with 80-some exhibits, including copies of emails and screenshots from his phone, the Court of Appeals discerned no abuse of discretion in the District Court’s decision to exclude evidence because the exhibits lacked foundation, contained hearsay statements, or were cumulative. Affirmed.

A21-0906 Johnson v. Blackwell (Ramsey County)

Landlord & Tenant

Damages

On appeal in this commercial-lease dispute, appellants, record owner and contract-for-deed vendee/landlord, argued that the District Court erred in holding them jointly and severally liable for breach of the commercial lease. Appellants also challenged the District Court’s award of damages to respondent, arguing that the District Court abused its discretion by failing to offset damages from respondent’s breach of the lease, declining to reduce the damages for failure to mitigate, and awarding appellant damages for the price he paid for his business. The Court of Appeals held that, because record owner was not a party to the lease, he could not be held liable for a breach of the lease. Furthermore, the District Court erred in awarding damages, as without any evidence demonstrating the value of respondent’s business at the time of the breach, a conclusion that it was worth the amount he paid for it was mere speculation. Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded.

A21-0959 Shikur v. Halverson (Ramsey County)

Criminal Nonprecedential

Warrantless Searches

Apparent Authority

In this pretrial appeal from an order suppressing evidence of a robbery that police found in defendant’s apartment, the State argued that the District Court erred in concluding that the officers’ warrantless search violated defendant’s constitutional rights. Noting evidence that a neighbor told offers that defendant had moved out and that the landlord stated that defendant had notified him that he was moving out, the Court of Appeals concluded that the police reasonably believed that defendant had abandoned the apartment and that the landlord had authority to allow the search. Reversed and remanded.

A21-1342 State v. Butcher (Becker County)

Warrantless Searches

Dog Sniffs

On appeal from his conviction of first-degree possession of a controlled substance, defendant argued that the District Court (1) erred by denying his motion to suppress evidence seized during a search of his vehicle, and (2) violated his constitutional right to present a complete defense by sustaining the state’s objection to his testimony about his past injuries at trial. Defendant argued that the evidence was discovered illegally because the officer lacked reasonable suspicion to conduct a dog-sniff search of his vehicle. Noting that defendant exhibited several signs of impairment, as he failed routine field sobriety tests, his vehicle had missing and removed interior panels, and he admitted to using controlled substances just 36 hours earlier, the Court of Appeals concluded that the officer had reasonable, articulable suspicion to expand the scope of the traffic stop to conduct a dog-sniff search of defendant’s vehicle. Affirmed.

A21-0444 State v. Keil (Stearns County)

Warrantless Searches

Emergency-Aid Exception

Defendant challenged his conviction as an ineligible person in possession of a firearm or ammunition, arguing that the District Court failed to suppress evidence obtained through an unconstitutional search. The Court of Appeals concluded that the police intrusion into defendant’s home was justified by the emergency-aid exception, as the physical and temporal proximity of the house to an apparent homicide in combination with open vehicle and house doors during the early morning gave the officers reasonable grounds to believe the house was linked to the recent violent crime and they approached the house with the intent to determine if anyone inside required emergency assistance. Affirmed.

A21-0745 State v. Todd (Hennepin County)

Warrantless Searches

Welfare Checks

In this appeal from her conviction for misdemeanor driving while impaired (DWI), defendant argued that the District Court erred in denying her motion to suppress the evidence and her statements to the police because the police unlawfully expanded a welfare check into a criminal investigation and interrogated her without providing a Miranda warning. Noting that defendant was found sleeping in a running car at 11:00 p.m. and that officers testified they could smell marijuana while standing three feet away from defendant’s car, the Court of Appeals concluded that the police had a reasonable and articulable suspicion of criminal activity that justified a limited investigatory detention. Affirmed.

A21-0603 State v. Waltz (Chippewa County)