This opinion will be unpublished and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

A06-193

 

Printing Resources, Inc.,

Respondent,

 

vs.

 

Robert Kartarik, d/b/a Kartarik Graphics and Printing,

defendant and third party plaintiff,

Respondent,

 

vs.

 

ECOsmarte Planet Friendly, Inc.,

third party defendant,

Appellant.

 

Filed January 23, 2007

Affirmed

Kalitowski, Judge

 

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

KALITOWSKI, Judge

            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 (Minn. App. 1992).  Appellant does not challenge the district court’s finding that Kartarik was appellant’s agent; rather, it challenges the district court’s conclusion that, as Kartarik’s principal, it is responsible for paying for services rendered by Printing Resources pursuant to a contract between Printing Resources and Kartarik entered into on appellant’s behalf.  We therefore review only whether the district court’s findings of fact support its conclusions of law.

            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.  Id.  Because appellant did not raise its specific agency law arguments before the district court, we need not address them here.  Thiele v. Stich, 425 N.W.2d 580, 582-83 (Minn. 1988) (“An appellate court may not base its decision on matters outside the record on appeal, and may not consider matters not produced and received in evidence below.”). 

            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 (Minn. App. 2006). 

            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.

            Affirmed.