Opinions Archive

1. In a dissolution proceeding, a district court must address whether to award need-based attorney fees under Minnesota Statutes section 518.14, subdivision 1 (2024), and whether to award spousal maintenance under Minnesota Statutes section 518.552 (2024). 2. Particularized findings are required to support a district court’s award of spousal maintenance in excess of the recipient’s demonstrated need. Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded.

In this probate action, appellant challenges the district court's order accepting the final account and settling her father's estate, claiming that the district court erred by relying on insufficient documentation and denying her the opportunity to submit additional evidence. After considering appellant's standing to appeal the district court's order and concluding that the district court did not deny her due process, we affirm.

Appellant C.C.H. (mother) challenges the district court's termination of her parental rights to her son, arguing that the district court abused its discretion by determining that (1) respondent Pine County Health and Human Services (the county) made reasonable efforts to reunite the family, (2) statutory grounds exist for termination, and (3) termination is in the child's best interests. We affirm.

In this spousal-maintenance dispute, appellant-wife challenges the district court's determination of respondent-husband's need for spousal maintenance, arguing that the district court (1) failed to consider all of husband's income; (2) did not base its award on the marital standard of living but instead tried to equalize the parties' incomes; (3) included expenses for husband that were speculative and unsupported in the record; and (4) failed to recognize the role that domestic abuse played in husband's request for spousal maintenance. Because we conclude that the district court made erroneous findings when it calculated husband's need for spousal maintenance and that additional findings are needed regarding husband's income, expenses, and the amount and duration of any spousal-maintenance award, we reverse and remand.

Appellant challenges the district court's grant of a harassment restraining order (HRO). Because the district court's decision was supported by sufficient evidence, the district court did not misapply the harassment statute, and the district court's decision was not based on clearly erroneous findings of fact, we affirm.

In this civil action, the district court granted the defendants' joint motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted and for judgment on the pleadings. The district court dismissed the complaint with prejudice. On appeal, the plaintiff argues that the district court should have dismissed the complaint without prejudice instead of with prejudice. We conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion by dismissing the complaint with prejudice. Therefore, we affirm.

Relator challenges the decision of an unemployment-law judge (ULJ) that he was ineligible to establish a second unemployment-benefit account or withdraw his first benefit account after the initial benefit year ended. We affirm.

In this appeal from final judgment raising a sentencing issue, appellant argues that the prosecutor engaged in plain-error misconduct at the sentencing hearing and that the district court abused its discretion by imposing a guidelines sentence. We affirm.

In this appeal from the district court's order denying postconviction relief, appellant argues that the district court erred by concluding, without an evidentiary hearing, that his ineffective-assistance-of-counsel claims were Knaffla-barred. We affirm.

Appellant challenges a district court order denying his motion under Minnesota Rule of Civil Procedure 60.02 to vacate or reopen an order for protection (OFP). Appellant maintains that Rule 60.02 relief is warranted because respondent committed "fraud upon the court" and because he has newly discovered evidence. We discern no abuse of discretion by the district court in denying the motion and therefore affirm.