Court of Appeals Digest: Feb. 11.

Byline: Minnesota Lawyer

Civil Published

Domestic Relations

Child Protection; Termination of Parental Rights

Appellant-father challenged the termination of his parental rights, arguing that he did not egregiously harm his child, he was not palpably unfit to parent his child, and termination was not in his child's best interests. The Court of Appeals held that, under the egregious-harm statute, Minn. Stat. 260C.301, subd. 1(b)(6), "a child" is "in the parent's care" when he or she is under the supervision, charge, or watchful oversight of the person subject to the termination proceeding. Affirmed.

A18-1255 In re Welfare of Child of K.L.W. (Hennepin County)

https://mn.gov/law-library-stat/archive/ctappub/2019/OPa181255-021119.pdf

Juries

Inconsistent Verdicts

A school bus collided with a car, killing one of the car's passengers and severely injuring the car's other passenger and the driver. The injured passenger sued the drivers of both the car and the bus along with the school district that employed the bus driver. The state intervened as a plaintiff. The jury first returned a verdict inconsistently finding in one answer that the bus driver's negligence did not directly cause the collision and in another that it did. The District Court sent the jury out to deliberate further to correct the defective verdict and the jury's amended verdict found that both drivers directly caused the collision. The District Court received the amended verdict, and the school district and bus driver moved for judgment as a matter of law, a new trial, dismissal of the state's claim, and an order limiting its damages. The District Court limited the state's damages to the statutory maximum for municipalities and denied all other motions. The injured passenger argued on appeal that the school district waived the right to limit its damages by purchasing insurance coverage exceeding the statutory cap. The school district and bus driver argued in their cross-appeal that they were entitled to judgment as a matter of law or a new trial based on the original verdict and for other reasons.

The Court of Appeals held that Minn. Stat. 546.24 does not compel the District Court to receive as final a civil jury's inconsistent verdict or prevent the District Court from sending the jury out to deliberate further under section 546.16 to remedy the inconsistency, even if the District Court has read the verdict aloud and received the jury's affirmation that it is their verdict. Affirmed.

A18-0413 Anderson v. Indep. School Dist. 696 (Itasca County)

https://mn.gov/law-library-stat/archive/ctappub/2019/OPa180413-021119.pdf

Zoning

Procedures

Two persons applied for a variance from a township's zoning ordinance so that they could build a residence on their jointly owned property. The township approved the variance application. Neighboring property owners commenced an action in District Court to obtain judicial review of the township's approval of the zoning-variance application. The neighbors timely served their summons and complaint on the township but not on the zoning-variance applicants. The township moved to dismiss the action on the ground that the applicants were necessary and indispensable but were not before the court. The District Court granted the township's motion.

The Court of Appeals held that Minn. R. Civ. P. 19, governing joinder of necessary parties, applies to an action under Minn. Stat. 462.361, subd. 1, for judicial review of a township's decision on an application for a zoning variance. Affirmed.

A18-0845 Schultz v. Town of Duluth (St. Louis County)

https://mn.gov/law-library-stat/archive/ctappub/2019/OPa180845-021119.pdf

Civil Unpublished

Domestic Relations

Child Custody; Grandparents

Appellant-father challenged the District Court's grant of sole physical and legal custody of his son to respondent-grandparents, arguing that the District Court abused its discretion by granting respondents' petition for third-party custody. Noting father's testimony that he was last alone with the child in August 2016 and that he had spent a total of 11 days with the child since March 2014, the Court of Appeals concluded that the District Court was well within its discretion in granting the petition for third-party custody. Affirmed.

A18-0244 Kaisamba v. Swarray (Dakota County)

https://mn.gov/law-library-stat/archive/ctapun/2019/OPa180244-021119.pdf

Domestic Relations

Child Protection; Termination of Parental Rights

Appellant-mother challenged the District Court's order terminating her parental rights. She argued that the record supported neither a basis for termination, nor the District Court's findings on the child's best interests and the county's reasonable reunification efforts. The District Court found appellant's palpable unfitness in part based on evidence that she used heroin and marijuana during her pregnancy, left a one-week-old child unsupervised, and drove while impaired with the child in the vehicle. The Court of Appeals concluded that the record supported termination...