Court of Appeals Digest: April 24, 2019.

Byline: admin

COURT OF APPEALS

Civil Published

Environmental Law

Water Appropriation

Appellants, the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (DNR) along with its commissioner of natural resources, a city, and a town, appealed from the District Court's grant of declaratory and injunctive relief to respondents lake restoration non-profit and homeowners' association on respondents' claims that the DNR violated Minnesota Environmental Rights Act (MERA) and the common-law public-trust doctrine by making water-appropriation decisions that lowered the water level of White Bear Lake. Appellants challenged the District Court's application of Minn. Stat. 116B.03 and the public-trust doctrine to respondents' claims, and argued that the District Court was without jurisdiction to make orders concerning the DNR's issuance of well permits. They also challenged the District Court's findings of fact and the scope of its remedial order as unsupported by the record.

The Court of Appeals held that (1) when a complaint alleging violations of MERA relates to conduct undertaken pursuant to a permit issued by the DNR, the only available relief is under Minn. Stat. 116B.10, and the bar in Minn. Stat. 116B.03 applies; and (2) in Minnesota, the common-law public-trust doctrine applies to navigable waters and does not apply to groundwater withdrawals. Reversed and remanded.

A18-0750 White Bear Lake Restoration Assoc. v. Minn. Dep't of Natural Res. (Ramsey County)

https://mn.gov/law-library-stat/archive/ctappub/2019/OPa180750-042219.pdf

Civil Unpublished

Agriculture

Crop Damages

Appellant challenged the District Court's calculation of his damages on his claim against respondent cooperative association alleging that a fertilizer spreader malfunctioned and caused crop damage and its judgment in favor of respondent on its breach-of-contract counterclaim. Appellant asserted that his damages should be calculated based on the difference between his projected yield goal of 130 bushels per acre and his actual yield. The Court of Appeals held that the District Court properly exercised its discretion by utilizing the adjuster's method to calculate damages. Affirmed.

A18-1328 Olean v. Moose Lake CO-OPerative Assoc. (Carlton County)

https://mn.gov/law-library-stat/archive/ctapun/2019/OPa181328-042219.pdf

Breach of Contract

Damages

Appellant executed three related contracts with assignor, which was not a party to this appeal, for the purchase of a commercial building. Among other things, appellant signed a loan agreement in which it promised to pay a five percent late charge if any payments were received more than five days after the due date and to indemnify assignor for attorney fees incurred in enforcing the contracts. Assignor later assigned all of its rights and interest under the contracts to respondent assignee. One year later, appellant defaulted and assignee sued appellant and its owner, as the loan guarantor. In this appeal from the judgment entered in favor of assignee, appellants argued that the District Court erred in enforcing the late charge and in awarding attorney fees. The Court of Appeals determined that the late charge was not an invalid liquidated-damages clause and that the District Court did not abuse its discretion in awarding attorney fees. Affirmed.

A18-1205 Gamma Lending Omega, LLC v. Talon First Trust, LLC (Ramsey County)

https://mn.gov/law-library-stat/archive/ctapun/2019/OPa181205-042219.pdf

Civil Commitment

SDP; Sufficiency of the Evidence

Appellant challenged his conviction as a sexually dangerous person (SDP) on the grounds that the District Court erred in determining that he met the criteria for commitment and that he received ineffective assistance of counsel. The Court of Appeals concluded that the record supported the District Court's determination that appellant met meets the criteria for commitment, noting that two experts testified that appellant was highly likely to reoffend, and the numeric value assigned by the experts was insufficient to render the finding clearly erroneous. Affirmed.

A18-1790 In re Civil Commitment of Grauberger (Lincoln County)

https://mn.gov/law-library-stat/archive/ctapun/2019/OPa181790-042219.pdf

Defamation

Maltreatment Reports

Appellant challenged the dismissal of his defamation and related claims arising out of the termination of his employment following a maltreatment investigation. He asserted that the District Court erred by dismissing counts one through ten of his third amended complaint, denying his efforts to file a fourth amended complaint and denying his motion for relief from judgment. The District Court concluded that appellant's defamation claims failed because respondents had statutory immunity under Minn. Stat. 626.557, subd. 5, which provides immunity to persons who make a good faith report or investigation concerning the maltreatment of a vulnerable adult. The Court of Appeals noted that there were no facts, consistent with appellant's theory, that would constitute a lack of good faith, even though the maltreatment allegations were...