Court of Appeals Digest: Jan. 20, 2020.

Byline: Minnesota Lawyer

Civil Published

Municipalities

Parks

Appellants City of Minneapolis and the Minneapolis Park and Recreation Board challenged the District Court's conclusion that the Minneapolis City Charter prohibits the Minneapolis City Council from operating and managing a city park. Respondents/cross-appellants challenged the District Court's conclusion that they lacked standing to contest two agreements: (1) a memorandum of understanding between the city council and the park board, and (2) a use agreement that provides certain rights regarding a park to cross-respondent football team.

The Court of Appeals concluded that the Minneapolis City Council lacks authority to operate and manage a park because the Minneapolis City Charter reserves the authority to establish, govern, administer, and maintain parks to the Minneapolis Park and Recreation Board. Furthermore, respondents lacked standing to challenge the use agreement and the MOU. Affirmed.

A19-0346, A19-0355 Hayden v. City of Minneapolis (Hennepin County)

Civil Unpublished

Domestic Relations

Child Protection; Termination of Parental Rights

Appellant-mother challenged the District Court's order denying her petition to voluntarily terminate her parental rights to her children and granting respondent county's petition to involuntarily terminate her parental rights to the children. She argued that the District Court erred by (1) denying her petition for voluntary termination of her parental rights and (2) declining to treat her petition for voluntary termination of her parental rights as superseding county's petition for involuntary termination. The Court of Appeals found no error and concluded that appellant's petition for voluntary termination of her parental rights did not supersede county's petition for involuntary termination of her parental rights. Affirmed.

A19-1253 In re Welfare of Children of J.D.T. (Grant County)

Domestic Relations

Dissolution; Spousal Maintenance

In this dissolution matter, husband argued that the District Court (1) made findings of fact that were not supported by the record, (2) chose an incorrect valuation date, (3) misvalued property, (4) failed to recognize his nonmarital interests in certain assets, (5) should have invaded wife's nonmarital property to accomplish an equitable property division, and (6) should have awarded him attorney fees. Based on the marital standard of living, and the fact that the parties have been living financially independent of each other for nearly ten years, the Court of Appeals concluded that the District Court properly exercised its broad discretion in denying husband's request for spousal maintenance. Affirmed.

A19-0317 Linnerooth v. Linnerooth (Crow Wing County)

https://mn.gov/law-library-stat/archive/ctapun/2020/OPa190317-012120.pdf

Domestic Relations

Dissolution; Spousal Maintenance

Appellant husband challenged a martial dissolution judgment. The parties disputed the valuation and division of martial assets and debts and the amount of temporary spousal maintenance and child support. Husband argued the District Court abused its discretion in determining his income for the purpose of calculating temporary spousal maintenance and child support, by reducing his budget and adjusting medical insurance payments, and by awarding him the business instead of ordering the parties to sell it. Noting that the District Court made no findings about which of husband's business expenses it considered, if any, or whether any claimed expenses were ordinary and necessary, the Court of Appeals remanded to the District Court to make necessary factual findings, but otherwise affirmed. Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded.

A19-0613 Thompson v. Thompson (Carlton County)

Intentional Misrepresentation

Damages

In this appeal following a court trial, appellants challenged the District Court's decision granting relief to respondent on its misrepresentation claim. Appellants challenged the District Court's sua sponte grant of a new trial on damages. Noting that, absent evidence of fair-market-value damages, respondent failed to establish a required element of its intentional-misrepresentation claim, the Court of Appeals concluded that the District Court erred as a matter of law. Reversed.

A19-0718 ARF, LLC v. SAMS Enters., LLC (Hennepin County)

Landlord & Tenant

Deposits

In this landlord-tenant dispute, the tenant moved out of a rented townhome two months before the expiration of the lease after the landlord said that he could do so. But the landlord refused to return the tenant's deposits on the ground that the expiration date of the written lease agreement could be modified only by a written lease amendment that is signed by the parties. After a court trial, the District Court determined that the tenant was entitled to the return of his deposits and ordered judgment in his favor. The Court of Appeals concluded that the District Court properly interpreted the parties' written lease agreement, which allowed the tenant to terminate the lease before it expired if the landlord approved. Affirmed.

A19-0570 Wahren v. Radz (Ramsey County)

Landlord & Tenant

Evictions

In this eviction action based on holdover after expiration of a lease, appellant-landlord challenged the District Court's determination that landlord violated the Fair Housing Act and Minnesota Human Rights Act and was thereby precluded from evicting...