Appellate Courts >
Court of Appeals >
Court of Appeals Opinions >
Court of Appeals Published Opinions
Appellate Courts will begin transmitting all notices, orders, and opinions electronically.
Beginning no later than July 1, 2011, the appellate courts will send notices, orders, opinions and correspondence related to pending cases to attorneys in those cases by e-mail rather than postal mail. All attorneys with pending appellate cases who have not already registered an e-mail address should do so immediately. Unrepresented parties with pending appellate cases may also participate in this e-notification system by registering an e-mail address. Please go to http://www.mncourts.gov/?page=156 for instructions how to register your e-mail address.
DECISIONS OF THE COURT OF APPEALS
FILED MONDAY, MAY 18, 2015
A14-1166 Jeffrey Apitz, et al., Appellants, vs. Terry Hopkins, et al., Respondents.
Itasca County District Court, Hon. Korey Wahwassuck.
A deed that grants an “exclusive easement for ingress, egress, and utility purposes” is ambiguous, and the interpretation of the easement grant is a question of fact.
Reversed and remanded. Judge Randolph W. Peterson.
A14-1254 Kenneth A. Roseland, et al., Appellants, vs. Joseph A. Wentzell,
et al., Respondents, Roseland Acres, LLC, et al., Respondents,
Eric Brever, et al., Respondents.
Pine County District Court, Hon. James T. Reuter.
An equitable mortgage created during the foreclosure process does not constitute a foreclosure reconveyance under Minn. Stat. § 325N.10, subd. 3 (2014), when the mortgage does not allow the mortgagee to acquire title to the property by redeeming the property as a junior lienholder.
A district court may order that mortgaged premises, including agricultural land, be sold as one parcel under Minn. Stat. § 581.04 (2014), if the court determines that a sale as one parcel is most beneficial to the interests of the parties and the mortgagor does not request that tracts be sold separately under Minn. Stat. § 582.042, subd. 3 (2014).
Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded. Judge Heidi S. Schellhas.
A14-1307 Scott Rilley, et al., Respondents, vs. MoneyMutual, LLC, Appellant.
Dakota County District Court, Hon. Martha M. Simonett.
A nonresident defendant creates sufficient contacts to establish personal jurisdiction in Minnesota when it solicits Minnesota residents via television advertising and e-mails and generates revenue from known Minnesota residents through its website.
Affirmed. Judge John P. Smith.
A14-0796 Nathan Kariniemi, et al., Respondents, vs. City of Rockford, Appellant.
Wright County District Court, Hon. Stephen M. Halsey.
Contractors are protected by official immunity when functioning as city officials.
Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded. Judge John P. Smith.
A14-1810 In the Matter of the Welfare of: C. J. H., Child.
Itasca County District Court, Hon. Lois J. Lang.
The juvenile court’s continuance of a delinquency proceeding after receiving the child’s admission of a charged offense and waiver of trial rights constitutes a continuance without adjudication within the meaning of Minn. R. Juv. Delinq. P. 15.05, subds. 1(B), 4. This rule governs the case despite the juvenile court’s initial withholding of a finding that the allegations of the charging document have been proved and the court’s designation of its order as a continuance for dismissal under Minn. R. Juv. Delinq. P. 14. Accordingly, the duration of the court’s subject-matter jurisdiction over the continued proceedings is limited as provided in rule 15 and the corresponding provision of the juvenile code.
Vacated. Judge Gary L. Crippen.*
*Retired judge of the Minnesota Court of Appeals, serving by appointment pursuant to Minn. Const. art. VI, § 10.