December 31, 2012 - Whether Respondent is in default of the terms and conditions of a Loan Note and Mortgage endorsed and assigned to the MHFA, rendering her liable to the MHFA for the repayment of monies received. Whether the MHFA is entitled to offset the amount owed by Respondent using revenue recapture in accordance with Minn. Stat. Chap. 270A.
December 27, 2012 - The issue in this case is whether or not the Respondent has failed to pay sales taxes owed to the Department as required by law, thereby authorizing the revocation of the Respondent’s sales tax permit.
December 21, 2012 - This matter came before the Chief Administrative Law Judge pursuant to the provisions of Minnesota Rules, part 1400.2300, subpart 6. Based upon a review of the record in this proceeding, the Chief Administrative Law Judge hereby approves the Report of the Administrative Law Judge, dated December 14, 2012, in all respects.
December 21, 2012 - Did Mr. Schulz post a campaign sign within 100 feet of a polling location that had been designated for the receipt of absentee ballots, during the 46-day period that preceded the November 6, 2012 general election? The three-judge panel concludes that the terms “anywhere on the public property on which a polling place is situated,” as used in Minn. Stat. § 211B.11, restricts campaigning within 100 feet of the property line of the parcel within which the polling location is situated. Because Mr. Schulz’s vehicle and campaign signs were more than 100 feet from the edge of the parcel that hosted the polling place, he did not violate Minn. Stat. § 211B.11 on October 1, November 1 or November 3, 2012.
December 21, 2012 - The parties stipulated that no genuine issue of material fact exists with respect to whether, as a matter of law, the Petitioners are entitled to an order allowing fees and expenses. However, if the Petitioners are entitled to such an order, issues of fact exist with respect to the amounts of fees and expenses that the Petitioners may recover.
December 20, 2012 - After reviewing the Complaint and attachments, the Administrative Law Judge finds that the Complaint does not state a prima facie violation of Minn. Stat. § 211A.02, subd 2. Therefore, the Complaint is dismissed.
December 20, 2012 - Whether Respondents violated Minn. Stat. §§ 326B.082, subd. 11(b)(9), 326B.805, subd. 5(c), and 326B.84(5), .84(11), and .84(15), by being judgment debtors based on residential contracting activities, by having a judgment against them for failure to make payments to subcontractors or suppliers, or by demonstrated financial irresponsibility?
Whether it is appropriate to affirm the Licensing Order issued against the Respondents on November 16, 2011.
Whether disciplinary action against the Licensees is in the public interest?
December 19, 2012 - After reviewing the Complaint and attached exhibits, the undersigned Administrative Law Judge has determined that the Complaint sets forth a prima facie violation of Minn. Stat. § 211B.05. This determination is described in more detail in the attached Memorandum.
December 19, 2012 - After reviewing the Complaint and attachments, the Administrative Law Judge finds that the Complaint does not state a prima facie violation of Minn. Stat. § 211B.05, subd 4. Therefore, the Complaint is dismissed.