This opinion will be unpublished and
may not be cited except as provided by
Minn. Stat. § 480A.08, subd. 3 (2006).
STATE OF MINNESOTA
IN COURT OF APPEALS
Printing Resources, Inc.,
Robert Kartarik, d/b/a Kartarik Graphics and Printing,
defendant and third party plaintiff,
ECOsmarte Planet Friendly, Inc.,
third party defendant,
Filed January 23, 2007
Ramsey County District Court
File No. CX-04-10317
Bruce W. Larson, Charles A. Beckjord, Law Office of Bruce W. Larson, 746 Mill Street, Wayzata, MN 55391 (for respondent Printing Resources)
Gregory M. Hanson, The Law Office of Gregory M. Hanson, 2104 Hastings Avenue, Suite 270, Newport, MN 55055 (for respondent Robert Kartarik)
W. Patrick Judge, Briggs and Morgan, P.A., 2200 IDS Center, 80 South Eighth Street, Suite 2200, Minneapolis, MN 55402 (for appellant)
Considered and decided by Klaphake, Presiding Judge; Kalitowski, Judge; and Wright, Judge.
U N P U B L I S H E D O P I N I O N
Appellant ECOsmarte Planet Friendly, Inc. challenges the district court’s legal conclusion that, as Robert Kartarik’s principal, it is responsible to pay the full balance on a contract for appellant’s benefit entered into between Kartarik and Printing Resources, Inc. We affirm.
D E C I S I O N
Where, as here, no motion for a new
trial or amended findings was made and the substantive questions raised on
appeal were not raised during trial, we review only whether the evidence supports
the district court’s findings and whether the findings support its conclusions
of law. Alpha Real Estate Co. of Rochester v. Delta Dental Plan of Minn.,
664 N.W.2d 303, 310 (Minn. 2003); Comstock
& Davis, Inc. v. G.D.S. & Assocs., 481 N.W.2d 82, 84 (
In its appellate brief, appellant
argues several theories of agency law intended to limit its liability
here. But it provided no reference to
the record, nor could we find any, indicating that appellant argued any of
these theories directly to the district court.
“The record on appeal includes papers filed in the trial court, the
exhibits, and the transcript of the proceedings.” Mesenbourg
v. Mesenbourg, 538 N.W.2d 489, 494 (Minn. App. 1995) (citing Minn. R. Civ.
App. P. 110.01). Moreover, appellant
bears the responsibility of providing a record showing that the issues it
raises on appeal were raised to the district court.
Instead, we review only whether the
district court’s findings of fact support its conclusions of law. Alpha
Real Estate Co. of Rochester, 664 N.W.2d at 310; Comstock & Davis, Inc., 481 N.W.2d at 84. “[A] principal is liable for his agents’ acts
committed in the scope of the agency relationship.” Kellogg
v. Woods, 720 N.W.2d 845, 852 (
Here, the district court found that Printing Resources had been involved in regular job sharing or job referral relationships with Kartarik in the past. The court further found that Kartarik, acting as a printing broker and agent for ECOsmarte, entered into a contract with Printing Resources. The district court concluded that Kartarik caused miscommunications resulting in budgetary overruns and that ECOsmarte, as Kartarik’s principal, was liable to Printing Resources for the full contract price less the amount already paid.
Because on the record before us the district court’s findings of fact reasonably support its conclusions of law, we cannot say that the district court erred.