Court of Appeals Digest: June 20, 2022

Civil Nonprecedential

Domestic Relations

Child Custody; Parenting Consultants

In this appeal, father challenged the District Court’s reversal of the parenting consultant’s decision regarding which school the joint child of the parties would attend. The Court of Appeals discerned no clear error in the District Court’s factual findings, and those findings reasonably supported the determination that it was in the best interests of the child to attend wife’s proposed school. Affirmed.

A21-0636 Garza v. Thi (Ramsey County)

Domestic Relations

Child Protection; Termination of Parental Rights

Appealing the District Court’s termination of her parental rights, appellant mother argued that the District Court abused its discretion when it concluded that: (1) statutory grounds justified termination; (2) the county exercised reasonable efforts to reunify the family; and (3) the best interests of the child favored termination of mother’s parental rights. Noting that, while the record indicated that mother, once incarcerated, stated for the first time that she intended to parent the child, other evidence supported the District Court’s determination that mother’s alleged intention was neither credible or realistic, the Court of Appeals concluded that the District Court acted within its discretion by ruling that mother abandoned the child and by terminating mother’s parental rights because she abandoned the child. Affirmed.

A22-0012 In re Welfare of Child of P.A.T. (Nobles County)

Insurance

Policy Interpretation

In this insurance coverage dispute arising from fire damage, appellant-insurer challenged the grant of summary judgment to respondent-owner. Appellant argued the District Court (1) erred in determining coverage under an ordinance or law endorsement and (2) misapplied the burden to show a genuine issue of material fact on the applicability of a preexisting violation exclusion. By notice of related appeal, respondent-owner argued the District Court erred in (1) denying its motion to amend the complaint to include a bad faith claim, (2) overruling its objection to the appraisal panel’s award based on a claim that the panel exceeded its authority, and (3) denying its claim for prejudgment interest. The Court of Appeals concluded that the District Court correctly determined both that the policy language was ambiguous and that the insurer did not meet its burden as to exclusion, did not abuse its discretion in denying the owner’s motion to amend, and correctly determined that the appraisal panel did not exceed its scope, but the court erred in denying prejudgment interest. Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded.

A21-1352 Ridgewood Bay Resort, Inc. v. Auto-Owners Ins. Co. (Sherburne County)

Municipalities

Special Assessments

Appellants challenged the District Court’s determinations arising out of its dismissal of their challenge to a special assessment adopted by respondent-city to cover part of the cost of water, sewage, storm-drain, and road replacement. Appellants also challenged the award of costs and disbursements. The Court of Appeals declined to address the merits of the special assessment on appeal, noting that an award of relief was no longer necessary, and concluded that the District Court’s award of costs and disbursements was not an abuse of its discretion. Affirmed.

A22-0028 Carpenter v. City of St. Cloud (Stearns County)

Orders for Protection

Domestic Abuse

The District Court granted respondent’s petition for an Order for Protection (OFP) after concluding that pro se appellant had committed domestic abuse by threatening her. Appellant contended that the record did not support this finding, that the District Court’s order was vague, that respondent’s counsel acted unethically towards him, that his evidence was not handled properly, and that the transcript was inaccurate. The Court of Appeals concluded that the record supported the District Court’s conclusion that appellant committed domestic abuse and it did not support appellant’s assertions of error. Affirmed.

A21-1591 Dehmer v. Phelps (Itasca County)

Orders for Protection

Sufficiency of the Evidence

Appellant challenged an order for protection issued in favor of respondent, arguing that the District Court (1) abused its discretion by failing to consider the relevant circumstances and (2) clearly erred by finding that respondent feared future abuse. The Court of Appeals concluded that neither the law nor the record supported appellant’s contention that the District Court’s analysis was deficient, and that the record supported the finding that respondent feared appellant would commit future acts of domestic abuse against her. Affirmed.

A21-1300 Frandrup v. Frandrup (Scott County)

Personal Jurisdiction

Minimum Contacts

A Minnesota resident sued a Maryland resident and two Maryland-based companies. The District Court dismissed the case on the ground that there was a lack of personal jurisdiction over each of the three defendants. Noting that two of the defendants had numerous contacts with appellant while he was in Minnesota for the purpose of obtaining his agreement that defendant could use appellant’s Minneapolis rental properties as collateral for defendant’s loan, and that the two defendants purposefully availed themselves of the benefits of doing business in Minnesota, the Court of Appeals concluded that there was personal jurisdiction over two defendants. The Court further concluded that the third defendant waived the defense of lack of personal jurisdiction. Reversed and remanded.

A21-1417 Davis v. EagleBank (Hennepin County)

Pleading

Companion Actions

Appellant-mortgagor challenged the District Court’s dismissal of his action against respondent, bank director and bank, for failure to state a claim on which relief may be granted. He argued that the District Court erred by considering and relying on allegations in his complaint in a companion case as a basis for dismissal. This appeal stemmed from the foreclosure on several parcels of appellant’s real property. Noting that consistency in companion actions that were based on overlapping facts was a strong reason to allow consideration of the complaint, the Court of Appeals concluded that the District Court did not err by considering the allegations in appellant’s complaint in the companion action against the bank when dismissing the action. Affirmed.

A21-1233 Lang v. Bjorklund (Hennepin County)

Relationship Evidence

Harmless Error

In this challenge to an order for protection (OFP) issued against him for the protection of his minor child, appellant argued that the District Court erred (1) by admitting evidence of prior domestic conduct against the child’s mother as relationship evidence under Minn. Stat. § 634.20 and (2) by granting the OFP based on findings that he contended were not supported by the record. The Court of Appeals concluded that any evidentiary error was not prejudicial and the factual findings were supported by the record. Affirmed.

A21-1526 Shanley v. Osgood (Stearns County)

Unemployment Benefits

Employment Misconduct

Relator challenged the decision of an unemployment-law judge (ULJ) that relator was ineligible for unemployment benefits because his employment was terminated due to employment misconduct for repeatedly being late without providing notice and failing to wear a hair restraint while managing respondent-employer’s kitchen. Relator argued that his conduct did not constitute employment misconduct and challenged the ULJ’s credibility determinations. Noting that relator had been put on notice concerning the conduct expected of him once a performance improvement plan was implemented, the Court of Appeals concluded that the record supported the finding that his conduct constituted employment misconduct. Affirmed.

A21-1198 Pioske v. Pizza Luce VII, Inc. (Dep’t of Emp’t & Econ. Dev.)

Criminal Nonprecedential

Assault

Great Bodily Harm

In this direct appeal from a judgment of conviction on charges of first-degree assault, defendant argued that his conviction should be reversed and the remaining, unadjudicated counts of conviction be dismissed because the District Court violated his constitutional right to a speedy trial. Alternatively, defendant argued that his conviction must be reversed for insufficient evidence. The Court of Appeals concluded that the District Court did not violate defendant’s speedy trial rights. However, the Court also concluded that the evidence was insufficient to support the jury’s finding that defendant inflicted great bodily harm as the conviction rested on evidence of potential injuries. Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded.

A21-0848 State v. Swenson (Redwood County)

Expert Testimony

Prejudice

In this direct appeal from his conviction of unintentional second-degree murder, defendant argued that the District Court abused its discretion by admitting expert testimony regarding gunshot-residue-testing evidence. The Court of Appeals concluded that the record reflected that the expert testimony was probative of whether defendant fired a gun on the day in question, and that probative value was not substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, confusion of the issues, or misleading the jury. Affirmed.

A21-0996 State v. Sims (Ramsey County)

Ineffective Assistance of Counsel

Deficient Performance

In this direct appeal stayed for postconviction proceedings, defendant challenged the District Court’s denial of his ineffective-assistance-of-counsel claim. Defendant argued that counsel provided ineffective assistance by failing to challenge the constitutionality of the search of his backpack. Noting that the presence of a torch combined with an officer’s knowledge that the room occupant had a drug-related conviction amounted to more than a hunch that a search would reveal controlled substances, the Court of Appeals concluded that the officer had reasonable suspicion to search the room, and thus counsel did not forfeit a meritorious claim by failing to challenge the search. Affirmed.

A20-0816 State v. Kounlabout (Nobles County)

Plea Withdrawal

Accuracy

Defendant sought to withdraw his guilty plea to felony domestic assault by strangulation. Defendant argued his guilty plea was not accurate because the record included no facts showing his relationship to the victim. Noting that defendant testified at the plea hearing that the complaint was true and accurate, the Court of Appeals concluded that defendant’s plea was accurate because the record established that defendant was living with the victim at the time of the assault. Affirmed.

A21-1210 State v. Johnson (Crow Wing County)

Probation Revocation

Need for Confinement

In this consolidated appeal from the District Court’s revocation of defendant’s probation, defendant argued that the District Court abused its discretion in revoking his probation because it made insufficient findings and because the record did not establish that the need for confinement outweighed the policies favoring continued probation. Defendant also argued that the District Court abused its discretion in sentencing appellant as a career offender because the District Court failed to make adequate findings and the record was insufficient to support the determination that the offenses were part of a pattern of criminal conduct. Noting that the record showed a defendant who had committed 28 burglaries in the county within a single year, who was given a chance to be on probation even though the sentencing guidelines called for a presumptive commitment to prison, and who within weeks of being released from jail left the state in direct violation of the terms of his probation, the Court of Appeals found no abuse of discretion in any of the District Court’s determinations. Affirmed.

A21-1490, A21-1500 State v. Cush (Ramsey County)

Right to Confrontation

Remote Testimony

In this direct appeal from the final judgment of conviction for bribery, defendant argued that the District Court violated his constitutional rights to (1) confront a witness face-to-face, and (2) a speedy trial. Noting that the state made a sufficient case-specific showing that allowing the witness to testify remotely was necessary to further the public policy of protecting public health during the COVID-19 pandemic, the Court of Appeals concluded that the District Court did not violate defendant’s right to confront a witness by allowing the witness to testify remotely. Furthermore, the District Court did not violate defendant’s right to a speedy trial. Affirmed.

A21-1225 State v. Keene (Rock County)

Sentencing

Downward Departures

In this appeal from a sentence for second-degree criminal sexual conduct, defendant challenged the denial of his downward dispositional departure motion. Given defendant’s history of noncompliance with the terms of probation, his lack of progress in the sex offender treatment program, and his mixed efforts to demonstrate accountability, the Court of Appeals concluded that it was not against logic or the facts to deny the departure request. Affirmed.

A21-1209 State v. Hale (Crow Wing County)