Louise D. Bjorkman

This case involved claims by a condominium association against a developer, a related LLC, and the principal manager for misrepresenting that new units would have hardwood floors when engineered wood flooring was installed instead. The district court ruled for the purchasers, finding violations of the Minnesota Consumer Fraud Act, breach of contract and statutory warranties, and grounds to pierce the corporate veil, while also addressing issues like corporate appearances without counsel, waiver of personal service, and attorney fees. On appeal, the court affirmed the judgment in full, holding that the evidence supported the fraud and breach findings despite an integration clause in the purchase agreements, that procedural rulings did not violate appellants' rights, and that the corporate entities were properly disregarded given the principal's transfers of assets and dissolution of the companies while aware of potential claims.

business & regulatoryproceduretorts & liability

The case involved Dr. Steven Emerson, who worked as an activities director for three school years and then as an interim principal, challenging his termination by the school district without a hearing on the grounds that he had acquired continuing-contract rights as a teacher under Minnesota law. The court affirmed the school district's decision, holding that Emerson was not entitled to such protections. The core reasoning was that the continuing-contract statute defines a "teacher" as a professional employee required to hold a state license, and since the Minnesota Department of Education does not mandate licensure for activities directors, Emerson did not complete the required probationary years as a teacher.

labor & employment

The case involved a tenant's claims under the Minnesota Human Rights Act that his landlords discriminated against him by refusing to renew his lease or accept his Section 8 housing vouchers due to his status as a public assistance recipient, quoting him a higher rent, and failing to accommodate his disability by continuing to participate in the program. The district court granted summary judgment to the landlords, and the appeals court affirmed. The court reasoned that the landlords' decision to phase out participation in the voluntary Section 8 program was a legitimate business choice not based on the tenant's protected status, that the tenant could not establish a prima facie case of discriminatory rent quoting because he could not pay without assistance, and that forcing continued acceptance of vouchers would fundamentally alter the landlords' policy and impose undue hardship rather than qualify as a required reasonable accommodation.

civil rightsproperty

The case involved the convictions of Hussein Osman Ahmed for third-degree assault and second-degree criminal sexual conduct against his three-year-old stepson, who suffered pattern burns consistent with abuse. The district court admitted the child's out-of-court statement identifying the defendant through a witness under the residual hearsay exception and the jury found the defendant guilty and that the crimes were committed with particular cruelty. The court of appeals affirmed the convictions, holding that the district court did not abuse its discretion in admitting the statement and that sufficient evidence supported the verdicts, but reversed the aggravated sentence and remanded for resentencing because the jury instruction on the particular cruelty aggravating factor was insufficient under recent precedent.

criminal lawprocedure

The case involved a dispute between QBE Insurance and a homeowners association over hail damage to townhome roofs, where the parties could not agree on the amount of loss and proceeded to an appraisal panel under the policy. The panel awarded replacement cost for total roof replacement on all 16 buildings, citing the unavailability of matching shingles, but the insurer challenged the award in a declaratory judgment action, arguing the panel exceeded its authority by making a coverage determination instead of valuing direct physical loss. The court affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment to the association, concluding that the award constituted a permissible valuation of loss under the policy's guaranteed replacement cost provisions, which allowed consideration of comparable materials and actual replacement needs. It also upheld the denial of a continuance for additional discovery, as the core issue was one of contract interpretation not requiring further factual development.

business & regulatorypropertyprocedure

This case concerned a tribal gaming enterprise's effort to enforce a tribal court money judgment against a former executive for reimbursement of legal fees related to licensing proceedings, which the enterprise sought to docket and collect in Minnesota state court under the UFCMJRA. The district court denied recognition and enforcement, concluding that the money judgment conflicted with a prior tribal court dismissal of related misconduct claims and that due process and public policy concerns also barred enforcement. The Minnesota Court of Appeals reversed and remanded, determining that the UFCMJRA's conflicting-judgments provision does not apply to multiple judgments from the same jurisdiction and that the district court improperly conducted an independent review of the tribal court decisions on the merits.

procedure

The case involves Mountain Peaks Financial Services' lawsuit to collect on a defaulted student loan originally issued by MOHELA to Catherine Roth-Steffen, which was later assigned through intermediaries to Mountain Peaks. The district court granted summary judgment to Mountain Peaks on claims including account stated, and the Minnesota Court of Appeals affirmed. The court held that the action was not barred by Minnesota's six-year statute of limitations because the federal Higher Education Act, 20 U.S.C. § 1091a, preempts state time limits for collection actions by assignees of qualifying lenders such as guaranty agencies. The court further concluded that admissible business records and loan documents established the debt, the assignment chain, and Roth-Steffen's obligation without creating genuine issues of material fact.

federal powerprocedure

The case involved Nathaniel McNeilly, a seasonal landscaping foreman, who challenged a determination by the Minnesota Department of Employment and Economic Development that he was ineligible for unemployment benefits during his off-season layoff. The unemployment-law judge found McNeilly ineligible because he had not actively sought other employment, as required by statute, and ordered repayment of over $8,000 in benefits received. On appeal, the Minnesota Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that seasonal workers must still satisfy the eligibility requirements of Minn. Stat. § 268.085, including actively looking for work, and that substantial evidence supported the finding that McNeilly's limited contacts with his employer did not meet this standard. The court rejected arguments that seasonal status excused the job-search obligation or that prior benefit receipt created an exception.

labor & employment

This case involved a mortgage foreclosure action on a homestead property owned by a married couple, where the wife signed the mortgage documents only as a 'non-borrower' with language waiving her homestead rights, while the husband alone signed as borrower. The district court ruled the mortgage void under Minn. Stat. § 507.02 because both spouses did not properly sign the conveyance. The appellate court reversed, holding that the mortgage could be enforced. The core reasoning was that the contract language was unambiguous and the wife's waiver of homestead rights fulfilled the statute's purpose of protecting a spouse from an unknowing conveyance, as she had full knowledge and participated in the transaction.

propertyfamily law

The case involved the state's attempt to forfeit Charlotte Heino's vehicle after her second DWI arrest, using a prior administrative license revocation from her first arrest as an aggravating factor under Minn. Stat. § 169A.63. The district court denied forfeiture, ruling that due process barred use of the prior revocation because Heino had petitioned for judicial review and no hearing had occurred. On appeal, the court reversed and remanded, holding that due process was not violated when the revocation was used in the forfeiture proceeding because Heino had voluntarily withdrawn her petitions for review before the forfeiture trial began. The court reasoned that the withdrawal indicated low risk of error in the revocation, the government has a strong interest in removing impaired drivers from the roads, and precedent like State v. Wiltgen supported this application in civil forfeiture. The case was remanded for trial on the forfeiture.

criminal lawprocedure

The case involved Cedric Stephenson, who was subject to a valid order for protection (OFP) barring him from entering his family residence. Police executed an arrest warrant by peering through a window, confirming his presence there in violation of the OFP, and arresting him without a search warrant; Stephenson moved to suppress this evidence as an unconstitutional search. The district court denied the motion, and the appellate court affirmed, holding that Stephenson had no reasonable expectation of privacy in the residence because the specific court order lawfully excluded him from it. The court reasoned that a valid legal prohibition on presence at a particular place eliminates any legitimate privacy interest protected by the Fourth Amendment, drawing on precedents involving similar court-ordered exclusions. Stephenson was convicted of misdemeanor violation of the OFP following a stipulated-facts trial.

criminal lawfamily lawprocedure