Court of Appeals Digest: Aug. 12, 2019.

Byline: Minnesota Lawyer

Civil Published

Medical Assistance

Eligibility

Appellant Commissioner of Minnesota Department of Human Services challenged a District Court order reversing the commissioner's determination that respondent applicant was ineligible for medical-assistance long-term care (MA-LTC) benefits. The commissioner asserted that the District Court erred by holding that the value of non-homestead life-estate interests held by the applicant's community spouse was not considered available to the applicant for purposes of eligibility.

The Court of Appeals held that, under the terms of Minn. Stat. 256B.056, subd. 4a, a community spouse's non-homestead life-estate interest is not salable unless the owner of the remainder interest intends to purchase the community spouse's life estate or the entire property is sold. When a life estate is deemed not salable, it is not considered for purposes of determining eligibility for medical-assistance long-term care benefits for the institutionalized spouse. Affirmed.

A18-2156 In re Schmalz (Renville County)

Civil Unpublished

Breach of Contract

Modification

In this appeal from the District Court's order and judgment in favor of respondent contractor following a court trial, appellant homeowners argued that the District Court made clearly erroneous findings and errors of law and abused its discretion by denying their posttrial motions. Appellants argued that the District Court erred by concluding that respondents' initial cost estimates were not fixed-fee arrangements and were instead preliminary cost estimates. Noting that the email from respondents clearly stated that the estimates were just thatestimates, the Court of Appeals found no clear error or abuse of the District Court's discretion. Affirmed.

A18-2029 Igbanugo v. Jennings (Hennepin County)

Conversion

Damages

Appellant challenged the denial of his motion for punitive damages as a matter of law following judgment in appellant's favor on his conversion claim arising out of respondent's removal of hay that appellant was storing on respondent's property. Noting that appellant did not properly plead his civil-theft claim and the issue was not litigated by consent, the Court of Appeals concluded that appellant was not entitled to punitive damages under the civil-theft statute. Affirmed

A18-2120 Tank v. Krusemark (Martin County)

Domestic Relations

Child Custody; Modification

Appellant-mother challenged District Court orders declining to modify child custody, modifying parenting time, and directing her to pay child support. The Court of Appeals agreed that mother did not establish a prima facie case for modifying custody, noting that she offered no evidence to show there are any current concerns by law enforcement, local or school authorities, adult family members, or others regarding the condition of the child or father's home. However, the District Court abused its discretion by ordering mother to pay $30 monthly for medical support. Affirmed in part and reversed in part.

A18-1852 Chamberlain v. Fleahman (In re Custody of B.L.F.) (Anoka County)

Eminent Domain

Compensation

Following a jury verdict awarding appellants minimum-compensation damages for the condemnation of their motel, appellants argued that the District Court abused its discretion by: (1) denying appellants' motion to exclude the expert testimony of respondent's minimum-compensation witness; (2) denying appellants' motion to exclude respondent's minimum-compensation evidence; (3) denying appellants' motion to exclude the assessed value of their property; and (4) using its equitable powers to offset appellants' judgment in accordance with a prior order requiring satisfaction of appellants' unpaid tax liabilities. The Court of Appeals concluded that, since the county produced the written expert report well before trial, the District Court did not abuse its discretion in denying appellants' motion to exclude the county's expert. Furthermore, the District Court did not err in identifying the relevant community for purposes of minimum compensation as the greater Minneapolis-St. Paul metro area. Affirmed.

A17-1539 County of Hennepin v. Bhakta (Hennepin County)

Forfeiture

Due Process

Appellant challenged the District Court's order and judgment forfeiting his vehicle. Appellant contended that a provision of Minnesota's vehicle forfeiture statute, Minn. Stat. 169A.63, subd. 9(d), deprived him of procedural due process. Because appellant's constitutional challenge to section 169A.63, subd. 9(d), was neither presented to nor considered by the District Court, and the record was insufficient for appellate review...