Opinions Archive

In this appeal from a final judgment in a receivership action, appellant Corey Johnston, who had operated a Ponzi scheme through his company, First United Funding, LLC, asserts that the district court erred in awarding post-judgment interest under Minn. Stat. § 549.09 (2016) on the judgments obtained by the receiver on behalf of the victims of the scheme. We affirm.

Bernardus Kleynhans moved to modify his stipulated, above-the-guidelines child- support obligation one year after the district court ordered child support. The district court denied Kleynhans’s motion, finding that Kleynhans failed to show that either parent’s income had changed. The district court also refused to reduce Kleynhans’s medical-support obligation. We affirm in part because the district court acted within its discretion by concluding that no substantial change in circumstances occurred and because Kleynhans did not challenge the entry of a default judgment on his extant medical-support arrearages. But we reverse in part because the district court did not address Kleynhans’s request to reduce his ongoing medical-support obligation, and we remand for the district court to make findings necessary to decide that aspect of Kleynhans’s motion.

On appeal from a denial of his petition for postconviction relief, appellant argues that the postconviction court abused its discretion because it did not review or analyze whether, in light of the enactment of the Minnesota Drug Sentencing Reform Act (DSRA), he is entitled to a reduced sentence. We affirm.

We affirm appellant Nicholas Sean Perkins’s conviction of first-degree criminal sexual conduct because the district court did not abuse its discretion in admitting evidence, the prosecutor did not commit misconduct, and Perkins did not receive ineffective assistance of counsel.

Proceedings initiated by a utility under Minn. Stat. § 237.045 (2016) to install a facility on railroad property do not effect an unconstitutional taking because the standard crossing fee established by that statute is distinct from any just compensation due for a taking and the statute does not preclude condemnation proceedings. Minn. Stat. § 237.045 is not per se preempted by 49 U.S.C. § 10501 (2012). Affirmed; motion denied.

Appellant argues the district court erred in determining that respondent’s real property was exempt from enforcement of a 2008 judgment based on stipulated facts establishing that, as of 2013, respondent owned and occupied the real property as his homestead. See Minn. Stat. § 510.01 (2016). Because respondent owned but abandoned the real property as his homestead in 2008, allowing the judgment lien to attach, and because existing precedent holds that a judgment lien is not defeated and execution of the judgment is not prevented by respondent’s subsequent occupancy of the real property as a homestead in 2013, we reverse.

Appellant challenges the imposition of two concurrent top-of-the-box sentences for felony fifth-degree assault convictions. Because the assaults were committed against two victims, the sentences did not unfairly exaggerate the criminality of his conduct, and the record shows that the district court carefully evaluated the relevant factors, we affirm.

Appellant challenges the summary-judgment dismissal of her hostile-work- environment claim under the Minnesota Human Rights Act (MHRA), asserting that the district court erred by failing to view the facts in the light most favorable to her claim and by determining that there are no genuine issues of material fact precluding summary judgment. We affirm.

We reverse respondent’s sentence because the district court erroneously relied on offender-related factors to impose a downward durational departure and the record discloses no other valid ground for departure. We remand to the district court for resentencing within the presumptive guidelines range.

Pro se relator challenges the determination that he is ineligible for unemployment benefits because he quit his employment. Relator argues that the unemployment-law judge impermissibly determined him ineligible for unemployment benefits for different reasons than those stated in the initial determination of ineligibility and that the unemployment- law judge failed to penalize his employer for submitting false paperwork. We affirm.