Court of Appeals Digest: May 6, 2024

Listen to this article

Civil Precedential

News Media

Free Flow of Information Act

Appellants, who constructed and own the Dakota Access Pipeline (DAPL), challenged a District Court order that denied their motion to enforce a third-party subpoena against respondents, a nonprofit media organization and one of its journalists, who were embedded with and reported on DAPL protests. Appellants asserted that the District Court erred in determining that respondents were entitled to the protections of the Minnesota Free Flow of Information Act (MFFIA) against disclosure of newsgathering information because the protections do not extend to information acquired through respondents’ allegedly unlawful and tortious conduct. By notice of related appeal, respondents asserted that the District Court erred by requiring them to produce a privilege log, and to make available for in camera review at the request of the District Court, information that was protected from disclosure by the MFFIA.

The Court of Appeals held that (1) the protections MFFIA are not limited only to newsgathering information obtained by means of lawful, nontortious conduct; and (2) a proceeding to enforce a third-party subpoena, a District Court may not require the third party to produce a privilege log or submit information for in camera inspection that is privileged under the MFFIA and does not fall within a statutory exception. Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded.

A23-1284 Energy Transfer LP v. Greenpeace Int’l (Hennepin County)

Civil Nonprecedential

Agriculture

Judgment Enforcement

Appellant-lessor argued that respondents, co-trustees of a family trust, cannot enforce a money judgment for slander of title because Minn. Stat. § 550.366 barred enforcing a judgment for the unpaid balance of a debt on agricultural property after three years from when the judgment was entered. The Court of Appeals concluded that a slander-of-title debt is not incurred debt while in the operation of a family farm or on agricultural property, and thus not subject to the protections of § 550.366. Affirmed.

A23-1416 Dyrdal v. Wallenberg (Pennington County)

Adverse Possession

Statutory Period

Following a court trial in this dispute over title to real property involving two adjacent parcels of agricultural land, appellant challenged the District Court’s denial of appellant’s claims of adverse possession, prescriptive easement, and conversion. Noting the finding that another’s possession of the property from 1994 to 2010 interrupted that of predecessor in interest and appellant, thereby preventing appellant from tacking his possession of the property onto predecessor’s possession of the property, the Court of Appeals concluded that appellant did not establish continuous possession of the disputed property for the statutory period. Affirmed.

A23-0983 Tiede v. County of Le Sueur (Le Sueur County)

Civil Commitment

Mental Illness; Overt Act

After being found incompetent to proceed on various criminal charges, appellant was indeterminately committed as a person with mental illness who is dangerous to the public (MI&D). Appellant challenged the indeterminate commitment, arguing that the District Court erred by (1) concluding that appellant engaged in overt acts capable of causing or attempting to cause serious physical harm to another, (2) concluding that appellant was indeterminately committable because he continued to meet the definition of a person who was MI&D and no less restrictive alternative was available, and (3) admitting and considering certain hearsay evidence and expert witness testimony. Noting evidence that appellant sprayed his mother and sister in the face with bear mace and used mace and a taser to attack law enforcement, the Court of Appeals concluded that appellant’s actions constituted overt acts causing or attempting to cause serious physical harm. Affirmed.

A23-1702 In re Civ. Commitment of Oyugi (Hennepin County)

Debt

Equitable Subrogation

This dispute arose from funds held by a receiver in a receivership action. Appellant and defendants executed a general agreement of indemnity, naming defendant as bond principal on public works projects, which effectively communicated an intent to form a surety relationship. Respondent bank later lent defendant $3,258,400, and they executed a security agreement that granted the bank a security interest in defendant’s property as collateral. Defendant defaulted on the projects and appellant paid on the bonds. Defendant also defaulted on the bank’s loan. Appellant and the bank dispute who had the right to defendant’s bonded receivables. Appellant appealed the District Court’s final judgment, arguing that the court should not have granted summary judgment to the bank. The Court of Appeals concluded that bank secured its interest in defendant’s collateral before appellant’s equitable subrogation claim attached.

A23-1478 United Prairie Bank v. Molnau Trucking LLC (Carver County)

Domestic Relations

Child Protection; Termination of Parental Rights

Appellant-father challenged the termination of his parental rights. Noting that father pleaded guilty to attempted second-degree murder of mother while the children were in the home, the Court of Appeals concluded that the District Court did not abuse its discretion in weighing father’s interest in maintaining the parent-child relationship against the children’s best interests. Affirmed.

A23-1757 In re Welfare of Children of P.P. (Otter Tail County)

Domestic Relations
Dissolution; Child Support

On appeal from judgment dissolving the parties’ marriage, appellant argued that the District Court should not have (1) omitted respondent’s bonuses when calculating income for purposes of child support and maintenance, and (2) treated appellant’s “dowry” of certain gold coins as marital property. The Court of Appeals discerned no error with the determination that respondent’s bonuses were not sufficiently dependable periodic payments to include as income, or that the equitable division of marital property included the gold coins. Affirmed.

A23-1517 Falavargani v. Tabrizi (Dakota County)

Domestic Relations

Dissolution; Judgment

Appellant-wife challenged the District Court’s denial of her motion to reopen the parties’ stipulated dissolution judgment and decree under for excusable neglect and fraud. Noting that appellant presented no evidence to show that husband had any interest in any workers’-compensation and personal-injury claims, the Court of Appeals concluded that appellant failed to establish that she was entitled to relief based on respondent’s alleged nondisclosure of her mental-health issues or husband’s alleged nondisclosure of certain assets. Affirmed.

A23-1644 Nord v. Bowers (Anoka County)

Domestic Relations

Grandparent Visitation; Factual Findings

Appellant challenged the District Court’s dismissal of her petition to establish visitation with her grandchildren following the death of her son, their father. Noting that the District Court did consider the children’s contact with grandmother, and that the court was not required to make best interests findings, the Court of Appeals discerned no abuse of discretion. Affirmed.

A23-0909 Nicks v. Rouse (Hennepin County)

Drivers’ License Revocation

Traffic Stops

The Commissioner of Public Safety revoked appellant’s driver’s license after she was arrested for driving while impaired and did not provide a breath sample. Appellant petitioned the District Court for a rescission of the revocation. The District Court denied the petition. Noting a trooper’s testimony that he observed appellant’s bloodshot and watery eyes, detected slurring in her speech, and smelled the odor of alcohol, the Court of Appeals concluded that the District Court did not err by finding that a state trooper had probable cause to believe that appellant was driving while impaired, by finding that appellant refused to submit to chemical testing, and by finding that appellant was not entitled to an independent breath test.

A23-1154 Alahapperuma v. Comm’r of Pub. Safety (Hennepin County)

Eminent Domain

Taking

In this appeal from summary judgment, appellants challenged the dismissal of their claims stemming from the intermittent flooding of their residential property by a nearby pond. Respondent-city owns and maintains the pond as a part of its stormwater-management system. Appellants asserted that the flooding amounts to a physical taking that required just compensation. Alternatively, appellants contended that the city was liable in nuisance or trespass for damage caused by its failure to manage pond water levels by routine maintenance and its approval of development within the watershed that increased impervious areas. Appellants argued that the District Court erred by (1) determining that no taking occurred, entering judgment for the city as a matter of law on their eminent-domain and inverse-condemnation claims, and (2) determining that the city was not liable, in the alternative, for appellants’ tort claims because the challenged government conduct was shielded by discretionary-function immunity.

The Court of Appeals concluded that intermittent flooding, when combined with evidence of a permanent risk of flooding, may amount to a taking, depending on the frequency, regularity, and permanency of the flooding, and that fact issues precluded summary judgment on the eminent-domain and inverse-condemnation claims. However, the Court concluded that the city satisfied its burden to show that its decisions to forgo routine maintenance of the pond and not to install an outlet in the pond were protected by discretionary-function immunity because this challenged conduct involved economic, political, and planning decisions. However, the Court also concluded that the city failed to offer evidence showing that the city’s development decisions were protected discretionary functions. Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded.

A23-1255 Feldhaus v. City of Minnetonka (Hennepin County)

Human Services Licensing

Maltreatment by Neglect

In this certiorari appeal, relator challenged an order by respondent Minnesota Department of Human Services (DHS) determining that relator committed maltreatment by neglect and imposing conditions on relator’s child-care license. Noting the finding that relator committed maltreatment by neglect by leaving the children unattended while going to the store, the Court of Appeals concluded that the commissioner’s decision that relator’s supervision plan was not appropriate under the circumstances was legally correct, supported by substantial evidence, and was not arbitrary or capricious. Affirmed.

A23-0976 In re Haack (Minn. Dep’t of Hum. Servs.)

Mechanics’ Liens

Notice

Following a court trial in this breach-of-contract and mechanic’s-lien-foreclosure action, appellant-homeowner argued that the District Court (1) erred in concluding that respondent-contractor complied with statutory prelien-notice requirements and (2) abused its discretion in denying appellant’s posttrial motions. The Court of Appeals concluded that the prelien notice was part of the parties’ written contract, and the District Court acted within its discretion in denying appellant’s posttrial motions. Affirmed.

A23-1069 Les Grumdahl Window & Siding LLC v. Brown (St. Louis County)

Official Immunity

Ministrerial Tasks

After a middle school student who uses a wheelchair was injured from falling from a school-operated van, parents of student brought a negligence action against the school district. On appeal, the school district challenged the denial of their summary judgment motion that claimed official immunity. The Court of Appeals concluded that the act of unloading a student in a wheelchair from the back of a district transport van was ministerial in nature, and, therefore not shielded from suit by official immunity. Affirmed.

A23-1161 Lindbom v. Becker Indep. School Dist. #726

Orders for Protection

Default

While the District Court granted appellant’s motion to extend an order for protection (OFP) against respondent, it did so only for two years. Appellant sought a 50-year extension, but the District Court concluded that it could not grant such an extension in a default proceeding. Nor did the District Court’s extension include a provision forbidding respondent from possessing firearms. Appellant appealed. The Court of Appeals concluded that no authority required both parties to be present for the District Court to grant a 50-year OFP extension and the OFP extension order did not address the firearm ownership prohibition set forth in Minn. Stat. § 518B.01 subd. 6(g). Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded.

A23-1391 Luthens v. Hansen (Hennepin County)

Public Employment

Discrimination

In this action in which appellant alleged the respondent-city committed retaliatory discharge in violation of the Minnesota Workers’ Compensation Act and reprisal and retaliation in violation of the Minnesota Whistleblower Act, appellant challenged the District Court’s grant of summary judgment to city. Noting that there was no genuine issue of material fact as to whether the city’s reason for discharge was unfounded, the Court of Appeals concluded that, based on the undisputed evidence, there was no causal connection between appellant’s termination from employment and his allegedly protected conduct. Affirmed.

A23-1017 Creger v. City of Cambridge (Isanti County)

Public Records

Tennessen Warnings

Appellant brought action against county, alleging Tennessen-warning violations by county social workers, in violation of the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act (MGDPA), led to his loss of custody of one of his children during a Child in Need of Protection or Support (CHIPS) proceeding and maltreatment investigation. The Court of Appeals concluded that no reasonable juror could determine that any failure by the county in providing Tennessen warnings caused appellant to lose custody of his first child and to have the county issue the maltreatment determination against him. Affirmed.

A23-1479 Webber v. Franks (Hennepin County)

Civil Order Opinions

Domestic Relations

Child Custody; Modification

Appellant-father challenged the District Court’s granting of mother’s motions to modify child custody and imposition of frivolous-litigant filing preconditions. The Court of Appeals found no error or abuse of discretion. Affirmed.

A23-1488 Beland v. Beland (Polk County)

Domestic Relations

Parenting Time; Attorney Fees

Father challenged the District Court’s order of conduct-based attorney fees after granting of mother’s motion to reduce and have supervised his parenting time. Noting that, by attempting to relitigate issues already decided by the District Court and by attacking the integrity of the decisions of other District Courts, father extended the proceeding, causing both parties to incur heightened legal fees, and expending judicial resources on issues already litigated, the Court of Appeals found that the award of attorney fees was proper. Affirmed.

A23-1235 Rued v. Rued (Hennepin County)

Domestic Relations

Parenting Time; Modification

Appellant-father appealed the District Court’s order denying his request to modify parenting time and argued that the Court of Appeals should overturn previous decisions affirming previous District Court orders in this case. Appellant also challenged an order declaring him a frivolous litigant. The Court of Appeals noted that it does not reconsider prior opinions and concluded the District Court did not abuse its discretion by declaring appellant a frivolous litigant. Affirmed.

A23-1444, A23-1467 Rued v. Rued (Hennepin County)

Trusts

Trustees

Appellant appealed from a judgment disposing of all claims in a trust dispute. Appellant sought, inter alia, removal of trustee. The Court of Appeals concluded that it could not discern the bases for the District Court’s rulings and remanded for the District Court to make findings and clarify its order. Remanded.

A23-1248 In re Roehrs Trust (Waseca County)

Criminal Precedential

Controlled Substance Crimes

Good Samaritan Act

Defendant challenged his convictions of two counts of fifth-degree controlled-substance crime, claiming that he was immune from prosecution under subdivision 1 of the Minnesota Good Samaritan overdose medical assistance act (the MGSA), Minn. Stat. § 604A.05. The MGSA offers immunity from prosecution for certain controlled-substance crimes when a “person acting in good faith . . . seeks medical assistance for another person who is experiencing a drug-related overdose” and the person satisfies other eligibility criteria outlined in subd. 1. Defendant argued that the District Court erred by determining that defendant failed to satisfy the good-faith requirement of the MGSA because he did not immediately disclose to the first responders that the overdose victim had consumed an excessive amount of alcohol, ingested cocaine, and had possibly used heroin. Defendant argued, in the alternative, that the District Court erred by denying his motion to submit his immunity claim to the jury as an affirmative defense.

The Court of Appeals held that (1) subdivision 1 of MGSA provides for immunity from prosecution, not an affirmative defense, and eligibility for immunity under the statute is therefore properly determined by the District Court; (2) the phrase “[a] person acting in good faith who seeks medical assistance” in the first sentence of Minn. Stat. § 604A.05, subd. 1, means a person acting with an honesty in belief or purpose who tries to locate medical assistance; (3) the phrase “acting in good faith” in the first sentence of Minn. Stat. § 604A.05, subd. 1, modifies the phrase that immediately follows: “who seeks medical assistance”; it does not modify the requirement to “cooperate[] with the authorities,” which is set out in subparagraph (2) of subdivision 1. Whether the criteria set out in subparagraphs (1) and (2) are satisfied is to be judged objectively, independent of the phrase “acting in good faith.” Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded.

A23-0685 State v. Borgquist (Sherburne County)

Probation Revocation

Plain Error

In these consolidated appeals from the orders of two different District Courts revoking defendant’s probation in separate criminal cases, defendant argued that the District Courts erred by granting his demands to execute his imposed sentences because the conditions of probation were less onerous than his executed prison sentences.

The Court of Appeals concluded that (1) error in granting a defendant’s demand to execute sentence is invited error, which is subject to plain-error review; and (2) a District Court may grant a defendant’s demand to execute sentence even if the conditions of probation are less onerous than the conditions of the executed sentence. Affirmed.

A23-1342, A23-1547 State v. Bogonko (Anoka & Hennepin Counties)

Criminal Nonprecedential

Evidence

Late Disclosure

After a jury found defendant guilty of first-degree criminal sexual conduct and terroristic threats for sexually abusing his minor stepson on multiple occasions and threatening to kill him, defendant appealed from a denial of a petition for postconviction relief. Defendant contended that the postconviction court erred by concluding that two evidentiary errors at his trial did not warrant relief. Specifically, he challenged the District Court’s decisions to exclude defense evidence as a sanction for its late disclosure and to admit the stepson’s sister’s testimony as relationship evidence. Noting that there was no good reason for the late disclosure as the evidence was within defendant’s possession and that the disclosure occurred after trial began and the state had already ensured the availability of a number of professional witnesses, the Court of Appeals concluded that the District Court did not abuse its discretion by excluding the cellphone evidence as a sanction for defendant’s late disclosure. Furthermore, there was no abuse of discretion in the admission of sister’s testimony as relationship evidence. Affirmed.

A23-1221 Forest v. State (Steele County)

Hearsay

Plain Error

In this appeal from a final judgment of conviction for first-degree controlled-substance sale, defendant argued, inter alia, that the District Court committed reversible plain error by allowing investigators to testify about an out-of-court statement identifying defendant as the seller, which was made by an investigator who did not testify at trial, because the evidence was inadmissible hearsay and violated defendant’s rights under the Sixth Amendment Confrontation Clause of the United States Constitution. The Court of Appeals concluded that this argument failed under plain-error review because defendant did not demonstrate that any error in admission of the testimony affected his substantial rights or that the fairness and integrity of judicial proceedings required a new trial. Affirmed.

A23-0615 State v. Holinka (Cottonwood County)

Murder

Self-Defense

In this direct appeal from the judgment of conviction for second-degree felony murder and unlawful possession of a firearm, defendant argued that (1) the state failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that defendant did not act in self-defense, and (2) the District Court erred by providing the self-defense instruction for intentional killings where defendant did not intend to kill the victim. Noting that the jury did not find defendant’s testimony credible, and that it would defer to that determination, the Court of Appeals concluded that there was sufficient evidence in the record to support the jury’s determination that defendant did not act in self-defense. Furthermore, there was no jury instruction error. Affirmed.

A23-0908 State v. Hunter (Ramsey County)

Probation Revocation

Intentional Violations

Defendant was placed on probation subject to a condition that he enter and complete a drug-treatment-court program. Nine months later, he asked the drug-treatment court to terminate his participation in the program. Shortly thereafter, the District Court that had placed him on probation revoked his probation. The Court of Appeals concluded that the District Court did not err by finding that defendant’s violation was intentional or by revoking defendant’s probation and executing his prison sentences. Affirmed.

A23-1170 State v. Coley (Winona County)

Seizure

Restraint of Liberty

Defendant challenged his unlawful-possession-of-a-firearm conviction, arguing that the District Court erred by denying his motion to suppress evidence obtained during a search of his vehicle because police (1) unlawfully seized him by approaching his already-stopped vehicle and directing him to roll down his window and (2) unlawfully searched his vehicle without probable cause. The Court of Appeals concluded that the officer’s conduct of approaching defendant’s already-stopped vehicle, illuminating it with the squad car’s spotlight and a flashlight, and directing him to roll down his window so they could speak was not a seizure. Furthermore, an odor of burnt marijuana together with possession of a smoking device and an admission that there was more marijuana in the vehicle established probable cause to believe that defendant’s vehicle contained at least 1.4 grams of marijuana. Affirmed.

A23-0714 State v. Chavez-Aguilar (Hennepin County)

Seizure

Welfare Check

In this direct appeal from the judgment of conviction for unlawful possession of a firearm and ammunition and fleeing a peace officer by means other than a motor vehicle, defendant argued that the District Court erred by (1) determining that neither defendant nor his vehicle were improperly seized, (2) determining that law enforcement had probable cause to search his vehicle, (3) determining that the evidence at trial was sufficient to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he possessed a firearm, and (4) directing a verdict on one element of the crime of fleeing a peace officer by means other than a motor vehicle. The Court of Appeals concluded that defendant was not seized when an officer parked his squad car behind defendant’s vehicle, or when the officer suggested he exit his vehicle and inquired into whether he had identification. Furthermore, noting that defendant protested the search of his car by locking his car doors and fleeing on foot, the Court concluded that law enforcement had probable cause to search defendant’s car. Affirmed.

A23-0797 State v. Starnes (Washington County)

Sentencing

Downward Departures

In this appeal from a final judgment of conviction for felony driving while impaired (DWI), defendant argued that the District Court abused its discretion by denying his motion for a downward dispositional departure. Alternatively, defendant contended that the District Court abused its discretion by sentencing him based on a criminal-history score that included unsubstantiated out-of-state convictions. The Court of Appeals concluded that any failure by the District Court to expressly consider factors supporting a departure was not grounds for reversal. However, the state failed to meet its burden of proving that the three alleged Georgia convictions were valid and would constitute felonies under Minnesota law. Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded.

A23-0717 State v. Street (Nobles County)

Sentencing

Upward Departures

Defendant appealed his sentence of 216 months for his conviction of second-degree criminal sexual conduct. At his sentencing hearing, the District Court granted the state’s motion for an upward durational departure, finding that the victim’s particular vulnerability provided substantial and compelling reasons for the departure. The Court of Appeals concluded that, because the District Court relied on the victim’s particular vulnerability in granting the upward durational departure, there was no abuse of discretion. Affirmed.

A23-0692 State v. Hageman (Anoka County)

Sentencing

Upward Departures

Defendant appealed his sentences for two second-degree-assault convictions. Defendant argued the District Court abused its discretion when it imposed (1) upward durational departures for both sentences and (2) excessive and unreasonable sentences. Noting that defendant admitted to multiple prior convictions for violent crimes and resumed his criminal conduct after his earlier releases from prison, the Court of Appeals concluded that the District Court did not abuse its discretion when it imposed an upward durational departure on the basis that defendant met the statutory criteria for sentencing as a dangerous offender. Affirmed.

A23-0732 State v. Peterson (St. Louis County)

Criminal Order Opinions

Plea Withdrawal

Adequate Factual Basis

Defendant entered an Alford plea to felony domestic assault. On direct appeal from the conviction, defendant argued that he was entitled to withdraw his guilty plea because the prosecutor failed to establish during the guilty plea hearing that the complainant was a “family or household member,” which is an element of felony domestic assault. The Court of Appeals agreed that the prosecutor failed to establish a sufficient factual basis for the guilty plea. Reversed and remanded.

A23-0924 State v. Motyl (Anoka County)

Postconviction Relief

Newly Discovered Evidence.

Petitioner challenged the denial of his eighth petition for postconviction relief from his conviction for first-degree criminal sexual conduct, asserting the existence of newly discovered evidence in the form of a supplemental police report. Noting that the report was disclosed to petition prior to trial, the Court of Appeals found no error. Affirmed.

A24-0053 Traylor v. State (Ramsey County)