Listen to this articleCivil Precedential
Landlord & Tenant
Lockouts
This appeal arose from respondent-landlord’s installation of a padlock on appellant-tenant’s apartment door following a fire. Respondent padlocked the apartment door without judicial process after the city declared the apartment temporarily uninhabitable due to damage caused by a fire in the next-door apartment. The padlock prevented appellant from entering the apartment or accessing his belongings inside. Appellant brought a combined lockout petition and emergency tenant remedies action (ETRA) in District Court. The District Court determined that respondent did not commit an unlawful lockout and that alternative housing costs and consequential damages were not available remedies under the ETRA statute for appellant’s losses resulting from a fire that respondent did not cause.
The Court of Appeals held that (1) a landlord’s installation of a padlock on a residential tenant’s apartment door without judicial process, when the tenant has neither abandoned nor surrendered the premises, is an unlawful lockout under Minn. Stat. § 504B.375; (2) a city’s determination that a residential apartment is temporarily uninhabitable due to fire damage and must not be occupied until repairs are complete does not extinguish a tenant’s present legal right to possess the premises under a written lease; and (3) the plain language of § 504B.425(g) does not categorically exclude an award of alternative housing costs or consequential damages to a tenant who has prevailed in an emergency tenant remedies action under § 504B.381, even when the fire that caused the tenant’s apartment to become uninhabitable was not caused by a landlord. Reversed and remanded.
A24-1159 Murphy v. Aeon (Hennepin County)
Civil Nonprecedential
Conversion
Damages
The parties to this appeal were in a relationship and lived together for approximately a decade. When they ended the relationship, a dispute arose concerning one party’s personal property. The District Court found that the plaintiff proved claims of conversion and replevin but was not entitled to any damages. Noting that the property has already been returned to appellant and he acknowledged the property was not damaged, the Court of Appeals concluded that the District Court did not err by not awarding appellant any damages. Affirmed.
A24-1474 Johnson v. Bee (Hennepin County)
Domestic Relations
Child Custody; Modification
Appellant/cross-respondent mother and respondent/cross-appellant father each challenged different aspects of the District Court’s findings of fact, conclusions of law, and order on mother’s motion to modify legal custody and to establish physical custody of the parties’ two children, as well as mother’s requests for a change in the children’s primary residence, for attorney fees, and for custody-evaluation costs. The Court of Appeals concluded that the District Court did not abuse its discretion as to the statutory rebuttable presumption against joint legal custody and joint physical custody that applies when domestic abuse has occurred between parents, or in determining that mother’s parenting-time proposal would have resulted in a restriction of father’s parenting time and did not err in analyzing this issue under Minn. Stat. § 518.175, subd. 5(c). Furthermore, the District Court did not prejudicially err by declining to apply the statutory endangerment standard to mother’s motion to modify legal custody and request to modify the children’s primary residence. However, the District Court’s findings on mother’s requests for attorney fees and custody-evaluation costs were insufficient for appellate review. Affirmed in part and remanded.
A24-0863 Hatfield v. Hatfield (Itasca County)
Guardianship
Guardians
Appellants appealed from a District Court order removing them as their son’s co-guardians and appointing a professional guardianship company to serve as son’s successor guardian and conservator. Noting that multiple people involved in son’s care testified that they had never met appellant, despite working with son for many years, the Court of Appeals concluded that the District Court did not abuse its discretion in determining that this change in guardianship was in son’s best interest. Affirmed.
A24-1383 In re Guardianship of Ziegler (Waseca County)
Harassment Restraining Orders
Harassment
Pro se appellant challenged a harassment restraining order (HRO), arguing that (1) respondent failed to prove harassment, (2) the District Court engaged in improper ex parte communication with respondent, (3) the District Court improperly removed appellant’s witness from the courtroom during the evidentiary hearing, (4) the District Court prevented appellant from presenting a defense, and (5) the judge was biased against appellant. Because the record supported the District Court’s finding that appellant’s emails to respondent constitute harassment, and appellant failed to demonstrate error or prejudice in the court’s conduct of the hearing, the Court of Appeals concluded that the District Court did not abuse its discretion by granting the HRO. Affirmed.
A24-1475 Martinez v. Gunderson (Hennepin County)
Insurance
Claims Made
In this insurance-coverage dispute, appellant-insurer challenged the District Court’s grant of judgment on the pleadings in favor of respondents. For respondents to be entitled to coverage, the insurance policy required the claim to be deemed made and reported during the applicable policy period. The District Court concluded that those requirements were satisfied, and appellant had a duty to defend respondents. Appellant argued that the District Court’s interpretation of the insurance policy was erroneous based on the plain language of the policy and that the District Court should have granted appellant’s motion for summary judgment because there was no genuine issue of material fact. The Court of Appeals agreed with appellant that the District Court’s interpretation of the policy was erroneous, and there remained a genuine issue of material fact. Reversed and remanded.
A24-1152 Smith Jadin Johnson, PLLC v. Minn. Lawyers Mut. Ins. Co. (Hennepin County)
Limited Liability Companies
Damages
Two of the owners of a limited liability company accused the other two owners of breaching their fiduciary duty and conversion for having allegedly transferred the company’s interest in real estate to benefit themselves. Midway through trial, the accused owners successfully moved for judgment as a matter of law for lack of damages evidence. The Court of Appeals concluded that the District Court correctly determined that the plaintiff owners generally failed to prove damages. But the court also determined that they introduced trial evidence on which a fact-finder could, to a limited extent, determine damages. Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded.
A24-0995 CastleRocke Group, LLC v. Litfin (Hennepin County)
Public Benefits
Disqualification
In this certiorari appeal, relators challenged a decision by respondent Minnesota Department of Education’s termination of their participation in the Child and Adult Care Food Program, in which they had participated as a sponsor, and their disqualification from future program participation. Relators argued that (1) the serious-deficiency notice issued by the Department failed to follow the program regulations under 7 C.F.R. § 226.6(c)(3)(iii)(A); (2) the serious-deficiency notice violated their right to procedural due process; and (3) Department’s final decision terminating them from the program was not supported by substantial evidence and is arbitrary and capricious. The Court of Appeals found no error, noting that the deficiency notice provided relators with a meaningful opportunity to respond. Affirmed.
A24-1195 Partners in Nutrition’s Appeals (Dep’t of Educ.)
Wrongful Death
Expert Affidavits
Appellant challenged the dismissal of his wrongful-death action, arguing that the District Court abused its discretion when it determined that appellant failed to timely serve a required expert-identification affidavit and granted respondent’s motion to dismiss. Because the intent of the legislature and the parties’ need for a bright-line rule establishing the affidavit period are just as relevant when a case is remanded as when a case is commenced, the Court of Appeals concluded that Minn. R. Civ. P. 26 governs the resumption of the 180-day affidavit period. Reversed and remanded.
A24-1610 Daulton v. TMS Treatment Ctr., Inc. (Hennepin County)
Civil Order Opinions
Zoning
Promissory Estoppel
Appellant commenced this action to establish a right to use an airstrip on his property in the City of Afton. The District Court granted the City’s motion for judgment on the pleadings. The Court of Appeals concluded that appellant’s promissory estoppel claim, based on alleged statements made by city council members in 2004, was subject to a six-year statute of limitations and the City was entitled to judgment on the pleadings. Affirmed.
A24-1760 Walker v. City of Afton (Washington County)
Criminal Precedential
Relationship Evidence
Review
In this appeal from a conviction of felony domestic assault, defendant argued that he was entitled to a new trial because the District Court did not sua sponte instruct the jury on how to appropriately consider relationship evidence after defendant’s objection to the admission of the evidence under Minn. Stat. § 634.20.
The Court of Appeals held that a defendant’s timely objection that relationship evidence should not be admitted because it fails to satisfy § 634.20 preserves for appellate review a District Court’s failure to sua sponte instruct the jury on the appropriate use of the evidence. Here, the District Court abused its discretion, and the error was not harmless. Reversed and remanded.
A24-1203 State v. Kocurek (Dakota County)
Criminal Nonprecedential
Conflicts of Interest
Representation
In this appeal from a final judgment of conviction for threats of violence against a District Court judge, defendant argued that the District Court abused its discretion by denying his motion to disqualify the assistant county attorney and his employer, the Chisago County Attorney’s Office, based on an alleged conflict of interest. Because the prosecuting attorney and the county attorney’s office did not have a conflict of interest, we conclude that the District Court did not abuse its discretion and affirm. Noting that the judge, while a victim in the threats-of-violence charge, was not the client of the prosecuting attorney or the county attorney’s office, the Court of Appeals concluded that neither the prosecuting attorney nor the county attorney’s office had a conflict of interest. Affirmed.
A24-0951 State v. Porter (Chisago County)
Cumulative Error
Prejudice
Defendant challenged the District Court’s judgment of conviction entered after a jury found him guilty of attempted second-degree murder during his second trial on the charge, arguing that the individual and cumulative effects of multiple errors made by the District Court and prosecutor required that he receive a new trial. Although this case contained a number of asserted errors of varying degrees, the Court of Appeals concluded that the state’s evidence against defendant was strong, this was not a factually close case, and therefore defendant was not denied a fair trial. Affirmed.
A24-0236 State v. Coleman (Waseca County)
Ineffective Assistance of Counsel
Deficient Performance
In this direct appeal, defendant challenged his conviction for third-degree criminal sexual conduct, arguing that his attorney conceded his guilt and therefore provided ineffective assistance of counsel. Alternatively, defendant challenged his sentence, arguing that the District Court incorrectly included two South Dakota convictions when it calculated his criminal-history score. The Court of Appeals concluded that defense counsel did not implicitly concede the position-of-authority element when defense counsel admitted defendant employed the minor. But resentencing was required to allow the state to develop a record to facilitate the District Court’s assessment of whether to include the two South Dakota convictions in defendant’s criminal-history score. Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded.
A24-0984 State v. Kuhns (Stearns County)
Juveniles
Extended Juvenile Jurisdiction
In this appeal from an order revoking extended-juvenile-jurisdiction (EJJ) status and probation and executing an 86-month prison sentence, appellant argued that the District Court abused its discretion because its findings on all three Austin factors were not supported by clear and convincing evidence. Noting that appellant failed to complete treatment, the Court of Appeals concluded that the District Court’s findings were supported by clear and convincing evidence and that the District Court therefore did not abuse its discretion. Affirmed.
A24-1533 In re Welfare of A.J.P. (Dakota County)
Plea Withdrawal
Voluntariness
Petitioner challenged the District Court’s denial of his postconviction motion to withdraw his guilty plea after sentencing for third-degree DWI—refusal to submit to chemical testing, arguing his plea was neither voluntary nor intelligent. The Court of Appeals concluded that petitioner failed to meet his burden of showing that he pleaded guilty due to improper pressure or coercion. Affirmed.
A24-1342 Patton v. State (Hubbard County)
Plea Withdrawal
Voluntariness
In this appeal from an order denying postconviction relief, petitioner argued that the postconviction court erred by not allowing him to withdraw his guilty plea, as his plea was involuntary because he felt forced into pleading guilty because his lawyer was not prepared for trial. The Court of Appeals agreed with the postconviction court that petitioner neither established that his counsel’s behavior fell below an objective standard of reasonableness, nor established that he would not have pleaded guilty but for his counsel’s alleged errors, and thus the court did not abuse its discretion in denying petitioner’s petition for postconviction relief. Affirmed.
A24-0157 State v. Beaulieu (Mille Lacs County)
Search Warrants
Probable Cause
Police officers were watching defendant and planning to take him into custody on arrest warrants when they saw him approach but not enter one car and then drive away in a different car. Police stopped defendant, arrested him, and found drugs and drug paraphernalia inside the car. The District Court issued a warrant to search the other car, and police searched it and found a handgun. Appealing from his consequent illegal-possession-of-a-firearm conviction, defendant argued that the search of that car violated his constitutional rights. The Court of Appeals concluded that the circumstances did not give the warrant-issuing judge a substantial basis to determine probable cause that police would find evidence of a crime inside the car where they found the handgun. Reversed.
A24-0949 State v. Johnson (Hennepin County)
Seizure
Reasonable, Articulable Suspicion
Defendant was convicted of refusing to submit to a chemical test and carrying a pistol while under the influence of alcohol. Defendant argued that the officer did not have a reasonable, articulable suspicion of criminal activity when he opened the driver’s door of defendant’s vehicle. The Court of Appeals concluded that, given the officer’s reasonable, articulable suspicion that defendant was driving while impaired, it was reasonable for the officer to ask defendant to step out of his vehicle and the District Court did not err by denying defendant’s pre-trial motion to suppress evidence. Affirmed.
A24-1223 State v. Stute (Hubbard County)
Sentencing
Downward Departures
Defendant challenged his presumptive prison sentences for first- and second-degree criminal sexual conduct, arguing that the District Court abused its discretion by denying a dispositional departure because (1) he was particularly amenable to probation, (2) his background as a police officer made him particularly unamenable to prison, (3) the District Court failed to consider the victim impact statements, and (4) the District Court improperly considered a community impact statement from another officer. The Court of Appeals concluded that defendant failed to demonstrate any flaw in the District Court’s determination that he was neither particularly amenable to probation nor particularly unamenable to prison, or in its consideration of the impact statements. Affirmed.
A24-1726 State v. Gramentz (Brown County)
Criminal Order Opinions
Postconviction Relief
Right to Counsel
Petitioner challenged the District Court’s dismissal of his self-represented petition for postconviction relief, arguing that he was entitled to appointment of a public defender to represent him in postconviction proceedings because this was his first review of that conviction and that the District Court’s failure to transmit his petition to the OMAPD was a structural error requiring this court to reverse and remand. The Court of Appeals concluded that the District Court committed structural error. Reversed and remanded.
A24-1492 Bailey v. State (Olmsted County)
Postconviction Relief
Timeliness
Petitioner challenged the denial of his ninth petition for postconviction relief from his conviction for first-degree criminal sexual conduct. The Court of Appeals concluded that petitioner’s subject-matter jurisdiction argument was without merit and that his two remaining arguments for postconviction relief were time-barred without exception. Affirmed.