Court of Appeals Digest: Nov. 25, 2019.

Byline: Minnesota Lawyer

Civil Published

Probate

Agents

In these consolidated appeals from an order in which the District Court directed appellants to refund to respondent estate commissions they previously received, appellants argued that the District Court (1) erred by allowing the estate to proceed with its claim under Minn. Stat. 524.3-721; (2) denied appellants due process of law by allowing the estate to proceed under Minn. Stat. 524.3-721; (3) erred by granting a temporary injunction without addressing the Dahlberg factors; and (4) abused its discretion by holding appellants, including their officers, directors, shareholders, employees, agents, assigns and successors, to be jointly and severally liable to the estate for the funds to be refunded.

The Court of Appeals concluded that the plain and unambiguous language of Minn. Stat. 524.3-721 allows a District Court, upon a proper motion, to review the reasonableness of compensation received by a specialized agent employed by the estate, to order appropriate refunds if the compensation received is determined to be excessive, and to fashion interim injunctive relief if warranted after analysis of the factors set forth in Dahlberg Bros., Inc. v. Ford Motor Co., 137 N.W.2d 314 (Minn. 1965). Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded.

A19-0503, A19-0507 In re Estate of Nelson (Carver County)

Civil Unpublished

Civil Commitment

SDP; Discharge

Appellant challenged the dismissal of his petition for full discharge from his civil commitment to the Minnesota Sex Offender Program (MSOP) as a sexually dangerous person (SDP) and as a sexual psychopathic personality (SPP). He argued that he presented a prima facie case for full discharge and is entitled to an evidentiary hearing. Noting that appellant's own evidence, especially a psychologist's report and testimony, indicated that he was diagnosed with pedophilic disorder, his risk of recidivism was above average, and he therefore continued to pose a danger to the public, the Court of Appeals concluded that appellant did not present a prima facie case with competent evidence showing that he was entitled to full discharge. Affirmed.

A19-1181 In re Civil Commitment of Hogy (Commitment Appeal Panel)

Domestic Relations

Child Protection; Termination of Parental Rights

Appellant challenged the District Court's order terminating her parental rights to her one-year old child. Child protection staff removed the child from appellant's care, believing that she was failing to protect the child from her boyfriend, who was living with her and physically abusing the child. The District Court found, among other things, that clear and convincing evidence proved three statutory grounds for termination and that terminating parental rights was in the child's best interests. The Court of Appeals concluded that the District Court's findings were supported by clear and convincing evidence. Affirmed.

A19-0945 In re Welfare of Child of I.M.K. (Morrison County)

Employment

Pleading

Pro se appellant challenged the denial of his motion to amend his complaint by adding claims for (1) hostile work environment and discrimination under the Minnesota Human Rights Act (MHRA), (2) aiding and abetting under the MHRA, and (3) constructive discharge. The Court of Appeals found no abuse of discretion in the denial, noting that appellant failed to show that either his hostile-work-environment claim or his discrimination claim was a cognizable legal claim. Affirmed.

A19-0472 Noel v. Lutheran Social Servs. of Minn. (Ramsey County)

Gifts

Donative Intent

Appellant challenged the order vacating a quitclaim deed that granted him a remainder interest in lake property. He argued that the District Court erred by considering extrinsic evidence in violation of the parol-evidence rule and by determining that the remainder interest was not a valid inter vivos gift. The District Court determined that the deed was not a valid inter vivos gift because the evidence did not establish the elements of donative intent and delivery. Noting donor's testimony that she executed the deed to protect the lake house from creditors and to keep the property in her family for the benefit of her children and grandchildren, the Court of Appeals found no clear error in the...