Court of Appeals Digest: June 10, 2019.

Byline: Minnesota Lawyer

Civil Published

Landlord & Tenant

Housing Choice Vouchers

Appellant city challenged the District Court's order granting summary judgment to respondents/cross-appellants landlord. The city argued that the District Court erred in concluding that the city's ordinance prohibiting landlords from refusing to rent to tenants with federal housing choice vouchers violates respondent's substantive-due-process and equal-protection rights under the Minnesota Constitution. The Court of Appeals held that a city ordinance prohibiting landlords from refusing to rent to tenants with federal housing choice vouchers does not implicate a fundamental right and that the ordinance did not violate respondent's substantive-due-process rights. Reversed and remanded.

A18-1271 Fletcher Props., Inc. v. City of Minneapolis (Hennepin County)

https://mn.gov/law-library-stat/archive/ctappub/2019/OPa181271-061019.pdf

Civil Unpublished

Corporations

Officers

In this dispute between co-owners of a corporation, appellant challenged the dismissal of his complaint for theft, conversion of an instrument, and misrepresentation and fraud against respondent for failure to state a claim. The claims arose based on respondent's action while appellant was incarcerated for unrelated charges. The Court of Appeals concluded that respondent had the power to dispose of business property and pay creditors as an officer of the business and that civil liability for theft could not be proven as respondent's disposal of business property occurred under a claim of right. Affirmed.

A18-1542 Schnagl v. Bonngard (Washington County)

https://mn.gov/law-library-stat/archive/ctapun/2019/OPa181542-061019.pdf

Domestic Relations

Child Support; Modification

Appellant appealed from a child support magistrate's order addressing his motion to modify his child support obligation. Appellant moved for a default judgment when respondent and county failed to comply with his discovery requests, after which the child support magistrate denied the default motion and modified the child support obligation by reducing the basic support component, reserving the issue of the childcare component, and leaving unaltered the medical support component. Allen argued that the child support magistrate erred by keeping the record open following the hearing, failing to issue a default judgment, failing to require respondent and the county to provide requested information, insufficiently reducing his child support obligation, and failing to address his medical support argument. The Court of Appeals concluded that the magistrate improperly failed to address appellant's request to modify his medical support obligation, but did not otherwise err. Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded.

A18-0923 Allen v. Thompson (Hennepin County)

(no link available)

Domestic Relations

Dissolution; Property Division

Appellant husband and respondent wife were married for 28 years before their marriage was dissolved. This appeal was concerned solely with the District Court's division of the parties' real property and personal property and the District Court's order that appellant make an equalization payment to respondent to achieve a just and equitable division of their marital property. The Court of Appeals concluded that the District Court did not err with respect to most of the issues raised on appeal but erred with respect to two particular issues concerning the value of certain property and the amount of appellant's equalization payment. Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded.

A18-1416 Schmitt v. Schmitt (Stearns County)

https://mn.gov/law-library-stat/archive/ctapun/2019/OPa181416-061019.pdf

Eminent Domain

Regulatory Takings

Appellant landowner appealed from the District Court's order and judgment dismissing his regulatory-taking and equal-protection claims following a court trial after remand from the Minnesota Supreme Court. The Court of Appeals concluded that county and township's demands for revised design, phasing, and barricading did not amount to a compensable regulatory taking because the record supported the District Court's factual finding that appellant failed to prove that respondents' conditions caused the complained-of property-value decrease. Affirmed.

A18-1607 Zweber v. Credit River Twp. (Scott County)

https://mn.gov/law-library-stat/archive/ctapun/2019/OPa181607-061019.pdf

Foreclosure

Agricultural Land

In this appeal after the entry of final judgment as to some but not all of the claims under Minn. R. Civ. P. 54.02, appellants argued that the District Court erred by determining that their commercial grain-elevator properties are not "agricultural land" under Minn. Stat. 500.245 and abused its discretion in denying appellants' request to continue the dispositive motions so as to allow additional discovery. Appellants also challenged the District Court's conclusion that Minn. Stat. 500.245 does not allow a private cause of action by preceding owners against a foreclosing lender and its agents for fraud. The Court of Appeals held that property used for storing agricultural products is not "agricultural land," and that, even if it assumed that section 500.245 provided appellants a cause of action, appellants' claim that respondents' sale to a buyer for a greater per-acre price than an earlier appraisal did not state a claim against respondents under that section. Affirmed.

A18-1845 Rabbe v. Farmers State Bank of Trimont (Martin County)

https://mn.gov/law-library-stat/archive/ctapun/2019/OPa181845-061019.pdf

Harassment Restraining Orders

Evidence

Appellant challenged the District Court's denial of a harassment restraining order (HRO) pursuant to Minn. Stat. 609.748. Appellant alleged the District Court abused its discretion by denying her request for an HRO because: (1) the District Court relied on evidence about the parties' social relationship before and after the alleged sexual assault, and (2) the District Court should have issued an HRO based on appellant's testimony. The Court of Appeals concluded that the District Court did not improperly use the social-relationship evidence. Affirmed.

A18-2108 Geraci v. Maxwell (Ramsey County)

https://mn.gov/law-library-stat/archive/ctapun/2019/OPa182108-061019.pdf

Limited Liability Companies

Governors

Appellant, the former chief financial officer of a limited liability company, challenged the dismissal of his complaint for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, arguing that the complaint stated a claim for violations of the Minnesota Limited Liability Company Act (MLLCA).

The Court of Appeals concluded that the District Court erred in dismissing appellant's complaint, noting that the District Court's decision was based on its flawed determination that the LLC had a board of governors, and therefore that there was no requirement that the vote...