Court of Appeals Digest: July 22, 2019.

Byline: Minnesota Lawyer

Civil Published

Civil Commitment

Reduction in Custody

Appellants county and Commissioner of Human Services challenged an order of a commitment appeal panel granting, in part, respondent's petition for a reduction in custody under Minn. Stat. 253D.27. Respondent had been civilly committed as a sexually dangerous person. The Court of Appeals concluded that it does not apply de novo review to a commitment appeal panel's decision on the merits of a petition for a reduction in custody under Minn. Stat. 253D.27, unless the panel has ordered dismissal under Minn. R. Civ. P. 41.02(b). Instead, the court reviews such a decision for clear error, examining the record to determine whether the evidence as a whole sustains the panel's findings. In the case at hand, the evidence as a whole did not support the panel's findings. Reversed.

A19-0194, A19-0239 In re Civil Commitment of Edwards (Commitment Appeal Panel)

Civil Unpublished

Breach of Contract

Pleading

Pro se appellant contended that the District Court erred by dismissing his complaint for failure to state a claim under Minn. R. Civ. P. 12.02(e). Respondent homeowners' association commenced a judicial-foreclosure action against an entity owned by appellant to foreclose on an assessment lien. Appellant brought a conciliation claim against respondent and respondent's attorney seeking to recover collection charges stemming from the unpaid assessments. Noting that appellant's complaint merely set forth unsupported allegations and conclusory statements without any factual support, the Court of Appeals concluded that appellant failed to state a claim. Affirmed.

A18-2060 Green v. Carlson (Washington County)

Civil Commitment

SDP; Discharge

In this post-remand appeal, the Commissioner of Human Services challenged an order of a commitment appeal panel granting respondent's petition for provisional discharge from his commitment as a sexually dangerous person, arguing that the CAP erred by rejecting expert opinions and by relying on evidence outside of the record. Noting that CAP was persuaded that respondent's provisional-discharge plan would provide a reasonable degree of protection because it contains public safety conditions, such as: GPS monitoring, a residence with supervision and locked doors and windows, and not leaving the residence without staff escorting him, the Court of Appeals concluded that the evidence as a whole supported the CAP's findings in support of provisional discharge. Affirmed.

A19-0378 In re Civil Commitment of Kerkhoff (Commitment Appeal Panel)

Civil Commitment

SDP; Ineffective Assistance of Counsel

On appeal from the District Court's denial of his motion for a new trial under Minn. R. Civ. P. 59.03 and 60.02, appellant, who was civilly committed as a sexually dangerous person and sexually psychopathic personality, alleged ineffective assistance of trial attorney based on newly discovered evidence of recent controlled-substance charges against his attorney. Noting that speculation that an attorney was under influence of controlled substances is not sufficient to establish objectively unreasonable representation, the Court of Appeals concluded that appellant's claim failed to meet the Strickland test. Affirmed.

A18-1691 In re Civil Commitment of Newman (Sherburne County)

Civil Commitment

SDP; Ineffective Assistance of Counsel

Appellant, who was civilly committed as a sexual psychopathic personality and as a sexually dangerous person, challenged the denial of his motion for a new civil-commitment trial, arguing that controlled-substance charges against his court-appointed attorney indicate that his attorney was impaired during his trial and rendered ineffective assistance. The Court of Appeals concluded that appellant failed to substantiate his ineffective-assistance-of-counsel claim with any indication of deficient performance or prejudice. Affirmed.

A19-0163 In re Civil Commitment of Wilson (Otter Tail County)

Civil Commitment

SDP; Transfer

Appellant, an individual indeterminately committed in the Minnesota Sex Offenders Program as a sexually dangerous person, challenged the commitment appeal panel's decision to deny his request to transfer to community preparation services, arguing that his current treatment in MSOP was no longer appropriate. The Court of Appeals concluded that the commitment appeal panel properly addressed appellant's petition in relation to the statutory factors outlined in Minn. Stat. 253D.29, subd. 1(b), and there was sufficient evidence to support the panel's findings and conclusions. Affirmed.

A19-0377 In re Civil Commitment of Stringer (Commitment Appeal Panel)

Construction

Fitness for Purpose

In this construction-defects lawsuit, commenced by respondents homeowners against appellant contractors that worked on a home-remodeling project, appellant challenged a District Court order finding that it breached an implied warranty of fitness for purpose, and is liable for $9,527.60 in damages. The Court of Appeals concluded that the District Court did not err in finding that appellant breached an implied warranty of fitness for purpose, and apportioning appellant 20 percent of the fault, noting that, contrary to appellant's position, the District Court's findings were amply supported by evidence demonstrating that ventilation was necessary to prevent water damage, and appellant's failure to ventilate the rubber membrane was a significant factor in bringing about water damage to the addition. Affirmed.

A18-1733 Chouanard v. Oak Lake Constr., Inc. (Hennepin County)

Counties

Immunity

Respondent was injured while snowmobiling alongside a county road. He and his wife sued the county and a nearby landowner for negligence. The county moved for summary judgment on the grounds of statutory discretionary immunity, common-law official immunity, and statutory highway right-of-way immunity. The District Court denied the county's motion with respect to each of the county's immunity defenses. The Court of Appeals concluded that the county was not entitled to statutory discretionary immunity but was entitled to common-law official immunity and statutory highway right-of-way immunity, as the county had engaged in a discretionary process of establishing and maintaining a standard policy of not marking culverts in its rights-of-way based on identified factors, and respondents failed to establish that county had knowledge of constant intrusions by snowmobilers on the county's highway right-of-way at the culvert tunnel. Affirmed.

A19-0011 Wenker v. Le Sueur County (Le Sueur County)

Creditors

Priority

In this priority dispute between three creditors, one appellant-creditor challenged a District Court's order authorizing an auction of unit retains in an assignment for the benefit of two respondent-creditors, arguing that the District Court erred in (1) determining ownership of the unit retains; (2) finding that respondent creditors created valid security interests in the unit retains; and (3) ordering the auction of unit retains that belonged to entities not involved in the assignment proceeding. The Court of Appeals determined that the District Court did not err in determining that debtor did not own sugar-beet entities' unit retains in his individual capacity, that valid security interests in the sugar-beet entities' unit retains had been created, or in ordering the auction and distribution of the unit retains. Affirmed.

A18-1873 In re Assignment for Benefit of Creditors of Sczepanski (Marshall County)

Domestic...