Minnesota Lawyer
Civil Precedential
Domestic Relations
Child Custody; Grandparent Rights
Appellant-mother challenged the District Court’s order granting her mother, respondent-grandmother, grandparent visitation with mother’s child. Mother argued the District Court misapplied Minn. Stat. § 257C.08, subd. 3, when it allowed grandmother to petition for visitation, because the provision does not allow a grandparent to petition if the grandparent no longer lived with the child at the time the parent removed the child from the home.
The Court of Appeals concluded that a grandparent who resided with a grandchild for 12 or more months may petition for visitation rights under Minn. Stat. § 257C.08, subd. 3, after the child’s parent removes the child from the home the grandparent and child shared even if the grandparent no longer resided in the home at the time of removal. Affirmed.
A22-0779 Mathison v. Webb (In re E.M.B.) (Washington County)
Public Employment
Vicarious Liability
Appellant challenged the District Court’s dismissal of the tort claims in his complaint against respondent Minnesota Department of Corrections for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. In 2021, appellant sued the department and others alleging that while appellant was an inmate in a correctional facility controlled and operated by the department, a department employee sexually harassed and assaulted him. The department moved to dismiss the complaint, arguing it was immune from liability under the Minnesota State Tort Claims Act (MSTCA). The District Court dismissed appellant’s tort claims with prejudice after determining that statutory immunity precluded his claims because the complaint failed to allege facts showing the department employee was acting within the scope of employment.
The Court of Appeals held that (1) to determine whether the state is vicariously liable for its employee’s acts or omissions under the MSTCA, courts presume the definition of “scope of office or employment” in Minn. Stat. § 3.732, subd. 1(3), is consistent with the common law understanding of scope of employment; and (2) the state is not entitled to the dismissal of tort claims under Minn. R. Civ. P. 12.02(e) when those claims are based on allegations that a corrections officer sexually assaulted an inmate while the corrections officer was on duty performing assigned tasks including supervision of the inmate because evidence may be produced consistent with these allegations showing that the officer was acting within the scope of employment as provided in the MSTCA. Reversed and remanded.
A22-0829 Sterry v. Minn. Dep’t of Corr. (Ramsey County)
Civil Nonprecedential
Domestic Relations
Child Custody; Relocation
Appellant-mother, who had sole physical custody of the children she shared with respondent-father, appealed the District Court’s order denying her “request to move to South Haven,” arguing that the District Court erred in restricting her ability to move within Minnesota when it ruled on her motions to modify parenting time and to change the children’s school. Noting that neither party moved the District Court to rule on whether mother could change her residence, The Court of Appeals concluded that the District Court abused its discretion by sua sponte imposing a geographic restriction and by failing to address mother’s motions. Reversed and remanded.
A22-0558 McKissock v. McKissock (Dakota County)
Domestic Relations
Parenting Time; Modification
Appellant-father challenged the District Court’s decision to deny his motion to modify parenting time. He argued that the District Court (1) misapplied a provision of the parties’ stipulated dissolution judgment relating to changes in parenting time and (2) failed to make sufficient written findings to support its decision to deny the motion. The Court of Appeals concluded that the stipulated judgment did not require the District Court to change the parenting-time schedule simply because father moved closer to the children, and the District Court adequately considered the best interests of the children in denying father’s motion. Affirmed.
A22-0861 Plombon v. Plombon (Blue Earth County)
Insurance
Appraisals
In this appeal arising from an insurance-coverage dispute, appellants challenged the District Court’s entry of judgment on an appraisal award, arguing that the District Court erred by (1) treating the appraisal award as an arbitration award; (2) ignoring the scheduling order; and (3) ignoring factual assertions made in a pro se “declaration.” The Court of Appeals concluded that the first argument was not preserved for appeal, and there was no abuse of discretion regarding the scheduling order or in the District Court’s treatment of the pro se declaration. Affirmed.
A22-1033 Robinson v. USAA (Olmsted County)
Partnerships
Profits and Losses
On appeal from judgment following a bifurcated trial on partnership-related claims, appellants challenged the District Court’s denial of their motion for a new trial, arguing that the court erred in (1) allocating the partnership’s profits and losses; and (2) determining the partnership property. Noting that the plain language of the Minnesota Uniform Partnership Act (MUPA) indicates that partners may, by agreement, deviate from the general rule that partners are entitled to share equally in a partnership’s profits and losses, the Court of Appeals concluded that the District Court did not err in finding that the parties agreed not to share the partnership profits and losses equally. Affirmed.
A22-1393 Schaffer v. Haler (Dakota County)
Probate
Concurrent Jurisdiction
Appellant challenged the District Court’s dismissal of this action in which he alleged fraud and conversion of firearms by respondent. Respondent was the personal representative of appellant’s father’s estate. Noting that the subject of each proceeding was the ownership of the firearms and whether the estate’s personal representative improperly transferred the firearms from the estate, and that the parties were the same, the Court of Appeals concluded that the District Court acted within its discretion in determining that the probate proceeding would serve best the needs of the parties by providing a comprehensive solution of the general conflict. Affirmed.
A22-1140 Hook v. Hook (Lyon County)
Unemployment Benefits
Employment Misconduct
Relator challenged the order of an unemployment-law judge (ULJ) determining that he was ineligible to receive unemployment benefits. Noting that relator was discharged for failing to abide by respondent-university’s reasonable request that he not conduct his lawsuits on work time, the Court of Appeals concluded that the ULJ did not err in determining that relator’s actions were employment misconduct. Affirmed.
A22-1080 Shackelford v. Univ. of Minn. (Dep’t of Emp’t & Econ. Dev.)
Criminal Nonprecedential
Disorderly Conduct
Self-Defense
In this direct appeal, defendant argued that her conviction for disorderly conduct (fighting or brawling) must be reversed and remanded for a new trial because of an erroneous jury instruction and prosecutorial misconduct. Noting that this case involved a physical altercation, the Court of Appeals concluded that the District Court committed reversible plain error by instructing the jury that self-defense was available only if defendant was resisting an offense that had the potential to cause bodily harm. Reversed and remanded.
A22-0531 State v. Vela (Steele County)
Juveniles
Extended Jurisdiction Juvenile
Appellant challenged his extended jurisdiction juvenile (EJJ) disposition order, arguing that the District Court erred by imposing a stayed adult sentence when appellant was convicted only of an offense, second-degree criminal sexual conduct, that did not carry a presumptive prison sentence. The Court of Appeals agreed that appellant was not convicted of a presumptive prison offense and remanded for the District Court to impose a delinquency disposition with appropriate terms and conditions. Reversed and remanded.
A22-1159 In re Welfare of W.S.A. (Hennepin County)
Plea Withdrawal
Adequate Factual Basis
In this direct appeal from a judgment of conviction for fourth-degree assault (harm), defendant argued that his Norgaard guilty plea was not constitutionally valid because it was not accurate or intelligent. Defendant contended that his statements during the plea colloquy and at sentencing supported a determination that he did not act volitionally because he was involuntarily intoxicated by an injection of an unidentified drug at the hospital. The Court of Appeals was not persuaded that a potential involuntary intoxication defense undermined the factual basis of defendant’s plea. Affirmed.
A22-0623 State v. Ellis (Anoka County)
Plea Withdrawal
Fair & Just
Defendant argued that the District Court abused its discretion by denying his motion to withdraw his Alford plea of guilty to theft by false representation and erred in considering the equity in his home in determining restitution. Defendant testified that he sought to withdraw his plea because he did not anticipate that entering the plea could result in the loss of his hospital employment. The Court of Appeals concluded that the District Court did not abuse its discretion by denying defendant’s motion to withdraw his plea and properly considered defendant’s ability to pay restitution. Affirmed.
A22-0630 State v. Cummings (Hennepin County)
Plea Withdrawal
Legal Standard
In this direct appeal from a judgment of conviction for attempted aggravated robbery, defendant raised two issues. First, defendant argued that the District Court applied the wrong legal standard when it denied his motion to withdraw his plea. Second, defendant contended that the District Court abused its discretion by adding a six-month enhancement to the presumptive sentence under the Minnesota Sentencing Guidelines. Noting that the District Court applied the legal standard that appellant requested when he made his motion, the Court of Appeals concluded that, even if the District Court applied the wrong legal standard for defendant’s motion, the error did not affect defendant’s substantial rights. Furthermore, the District Court imposed a sentence within the range authorized by the guidelines. Affirmed.
A22-0627 State v. Erbob (Ramsey County)
Right to Confrontation
Testimonial
Defendant challenged his conviction for violating a domestic abuse no-contact order, arguing that the District Court denied his right to confrontation by admitting a body-camera recording of the nontestifying victim’s out-of-court statements. Defendant also asserted he was entitled to resentencing based on the erroneous calculation of his criminal-history score. The Court of Appeals concluded that the victim’s statements on the recording identifying her assailant were nontestimonial in nature and their admission did not violate defendant’s constitutional right to confrontation. However, defendant was entitled to resentencing based on his correct criminal-history score. Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded.
A22-0521 State v. Locke (Hennepin County)
Right to Jury
Waiver
On appeal from his convictions of fourth-degree assault, third-degree driving while impaired (DWI), and obstructing legal process, defendant argued that (1) his jury-trial waiver was invalid, and (2) the District Court erred by sentencing him for both assault and obstructing legal process because the two offenses were committed as part of a single behavioral incident. Noting that defendant cited no legal authority stating that a specific advisory must be given on the record or that leading questions are discouraged or prohibited during a jury trial waiver, the Court of Appeals concluded that defendant could not demonstrate that his jury trial waiver was invalid. Affirmed.
A22-0823 State v. Cage (Olmsted County)
