EN BANC CALENDAR
Before the Minnesota Supreme Court
May 2022
SUMMARY OF ISSUES
Summaries prepared by the Supreme Court Commissioner’s Office
Monday, May 2, 2022
Supreme Court Courtroom, State Capitol Building, Second Floor
Under the Rainbow Early Education Center, Relator, vs. County of Goodhue, Respondent – Case No. A21-1349: Relator Under the Rainbow Early Education Center (“UTR”) owns property in Red Wing, in Goodhue County. The property in question is licensed by the Department of Human Services as a child care center. UTR applied for an exemption from property taxation as a seminary of learning pursuant to Minn. Stat. § 272.02, subd. 5 (2020) for assessment year 2019, alleging that it provides early education services to children aged 6 weeks to 12 years. Respondent Goodhue County denied the application. UTR filed a petition for review in the Minnesota Tax Court.
Following discovery, the parties cross-moved for summary judgment. The Tax Court found in favor of the County, granting its motion and denying UTR’s motion. The Tax Court found that there was no genuine dispute of material fact that UTR functions as an educational institution, but the court concluded that UTR had failed to meet two additional requirements to qualify as a seminary of learning, as set forth in State v. Northwestern Preparatory School, 83 N.W.2d 242 (Minn. 1957): (1) that it provide a substantial part of the educational training which would otherwise be required to be furnished by publicly supported institutions, thereby reducing in some way the public burden, and (2) that it provide students a general education that can be readily assimilated into the public school system.
On appeal to the supreme court, UTR presents the following issues: (1) Does a pre-kindergarten, early childhood education center qualify as an educational institution entitled to a property tax exemption under Minn. Stat. § 272.02, subd. 5, where that center has an active license through the Minnesota Department of Human Services and maintains the highest possible, “Four-Star” rating through DHS’s “Parent Aware” early childhood education kindergarten preparedness rating system? (2) In evaluating the entitlement of an educational institution to a property tax exemption, are the inquiries from Nw. Preparatory regarding the type of education provided to be applied as “essential elements” of an exemption claim? and (3) To be entitled to a property tax exemption, must an educational institution show “cooperation” or “coordination” with the local public school district? (Minnesota Tax Court)
In re Petition for Disciplinary Action against Jason Alexander Nielson, a Minnesota Attorney, Registration No. 0395101 – Case No. A21-0339: An attorney discipline matter that presents the question of what discipline, if any, is appropriate based on the facts of the case.
Tuesday, May 3, 2022
Supreme Court Courtroom, State Capitol Building, Second Floor
G&I IX OIC LLC, Respondent, vs. County of Hennepin, Appellant – Case No. A21-1493: Respondent G&I IX OIC, LLC (the “taxpayer”) owns property in downtown Minneapolis. The taxpayer filed a petition in the Minnesota Tax Court challenging the property valuation used in assessing its property taxes.
The taxpayer and appellant Hennepin County exchanged expert appraisal reports. The taxpayer then filed a motion in limine seeking to exclude portions of the county’s expert report containing data about comparable income-producing properties. The Tax Court granted the motion in part, precluding the county from using at trial an expert report that contained assessor data classified by the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act as nonpublic.
On appeal to the supreme court, the county presents the following issue: Did the Minnesota Tax Court commit legal error in prohibiting the county from relying upon relevant real estate income and expense data in its expert report? (Minnesota Tax Court)
Wednesday, May 4, 2022
Supreme Court Courtroom, State Capitol Building, Second Floor
In re Petition for Disciplinary Action against Geoffrey Robert Colosi, a Minnesota Attorney, Registration No. 0336026 – Case No. A21-0152: An attorney discipline matter that presents the question of what discipline, if any, is appropriate based on the facts of the case.
Thursday, May 5, 2022
Supreme Court Courtroom, State Capitol Building, Second Floor
In re Petition for Disciplinary Action against Patrick Chinedu Nwaneri, a Minnesota Attorney, Registration No. 0322003 – Case No. A21-0547: An attorney discipline matter that presents the question of what discipline, if any, is appropriate based on the facts of the case.
Monday, May 9, 2022
Supreme Court Courtroom, State Capitol Building, Second Floor
In re the Estate of: Hazel E. Bach, Deceased – Case No. A21-0319: This appeal concerns the interpretation of the Last Will and Testament of Hazel E. Bach, which granted 200 acres of land to her nephews, appellants Neal Johnson and Thomas Johnson. At issue is the interpretation of a provision of the will, which states that “[t]his bequest is conditioned upon” appellants making three “payments,” including the payment of “[t]he sum of $200,000.00” to appellants’ sister, within 120 days of Bach’s death. The sister advised appellants that she did not require the immediate payment of the entire $200,000 and that she would accept installment payments over time. Consequently, appellants did not make the full $200,000 payment.
Respondent Lee Johnson, one of the personal representatives of the estate, challenged the ownership of the 200-acre parcel after appellants failed to make the $200,000 payment within 120 days of Bach’s death. The district court ruled in favor of appellants. The court of appeals reversed and remanded, concluding that the plain language of the will required appellants to make the three payments within 120 days of Bach’s death “in order for the devise of the 200-acre parcel to [appellants] to vest.” The court of appeals also concluded that appellants did not make the “payment” of $200,000 to their sister within 120 days of Bach’s death.
On appeal to the supreme court, the court granted review of the following issues: (1) Whether the court of appeals erred in failing to apply In re Miller’s Estate, 160 N.W. 1025 (Minn. 1917), and its progeny concerning the requirements of acceptance of conditional bequests in the interpretation of wills? (2) Whether the court of appeals erred in determining that the conditions of the conditional devise were not met? and (3) Whether the court of appeals erred in concluding that appellants did not timely complete the acts required to receive their conditional devise? (Nicollet County)
Wednesday, May 11, 2022
Supreme Court Courtroom, State Capitol Building, Second Floor
Carter Justice, Appellant/Cross-Respondent, vs. Marvel, LLC d/b/a Pump It Up Parties, Respondent/Cross-Appellant – Case No. A20-1318: Respondent/cross-appellant Marvel, LLC operated a franchise business under the name Pump It Up in Plymouth, Minnesota, between 2004 and 2009. Pump It Up provided inflatable amusement equipment on which children could play. In February 2007, appellant/cross-respondent Carter Justice, who was then 7 years old, attended a party at Marvel’s facility, where he fell and injured his head.
Prior to the injury, Carter’s mother had signed a Waiver on behalf of herself and Carter, releasing Marvel from claims related to use of the equipment. Approximately 6 months after the injury, in September 2007, Carter’s mother and stepfather entered into a written Agreement with Marvel. The Agreement recited that that Carter appeared to have recovered completely from his injuries. In it, Marvel agreed to pay (and in fact it did pay) $1,500 of Carter’s unreimbursed medical expenses, and Carter’s mother and stepfather agreed to execute a full release if there were no new medical complications within 6 months. Carter’s mother and stepfather did not in fact sign the contemplated full release.
In 2010, the Legislature enacted Minn. Stat. § 184B.20 (2020), which regulates inflatable amusement equipment and, among other things, renders void “[a] waiver of liability signed by or on behalf of a minor for injuries arising out of the negligence of the owner” of such inflatable amusement equipment “or the owner’s employee or designee.” Id., subd. 5(b). The act was made “effective August 1, 2010.” Then in 2013, the Legislature enacted Minn. Stat. § 604.055 (2020), which renders void a waiver “between parties for a consumer service, including a recreational activity, that purports to release . . . liability . . . [for] conduct that constitutes greater than ordinary negligence,” id., subd. 1, but also provides that such a waiver is severable from a waiver of liability for ordinary negligence. Id. That statute was made “effective August 1, 2013, and applies to agreements signed or accepted on or after that date.”
In 2018, after Carter had reached the age of majority, he sued Marvel, alleging negligence. Marvel moved for summary judgment, arguing that Carter’s claims were barred by both the Waiver and the Agreement, and that there was no evidence it was negligent. The district court granted the motion, concluding that the Waiver was enforceable to release Marvel from liability for negligence.
The court of appeals affirmed. It concluded that a parent has the authority to agree to a binding pre-injury exculpatory clause on behalf of the parent’s minor child, and that Minn. Stat. § 184B.20 did not apply retroactively to the 2007 Waiver and injuries. It further concluded that the exculpatory clause in the Waiver was overbroad (in that it purported to release Marvel from liability for greater than ordinary negligence), but that it was not unenforceable because of its overbreadth and it was likewise not unenforceable based on public policy.
On appeal to the supreme court, the court granted review of the following issues: (1) Does a pre-injury liability waiver signed by a parent deprive a child of the ability to recover tort damages? (2) Does the legislature’s child-protective ban on inflatable-amusement liability waivers apply to injured children whose claims are subject to waivers signed before the ban’s effective date? (3) Does Minnesota let courts ‘save’ overbroad liability waivers, contrary to the well-settled rule of strict construction? (4) Do public-amusement liability waivers violate public policy? and (5) Whether portions of the liability waiver were, in fact, overly broad? (Hennepin County)