Lommen Abdo’s appellate team is continuing our annual tradition of recapping some of the most interesting cases we’ve handled this year. This year took us to the Minnesota, Wisconsin, and North Dakota appellate courts and we obtained favorable results in several hotly-contested cases. We hope you will enjoy learning more about what we’ve been up to in 2025.
Supreme Court Decisions
Scheurer v. Shrewsbury, 24 N.W.3d 670 (Minn. 2025)
The MN Supreme Court issued a very important decision regarding how to calculate prejudgment interest. The plaintiff made two unique arguments that would have had serious consequences for future cases if adopted. First, they argued that prejudgment interest begins to run from the written notice of claim, even if that notice is more than two years before commencement of the action, so long as a party later serves a written offer of settlement. Second, the plaintiff argued the court should calculate prejudgment interest before making collateral source deductions. The Supreme Court rejected both of the plaintiff’s arguments, ruling in favor of our client on both issues. We discussed this case in more detail here.
Juliuson v. Johnson, Tr. of Barbara R. Johnson Revocable Tr., 2025 ND 139, 24 N.W.3d 385
We also had a decision from the North Dakota Supreme Court this year. This case involved the sale of farmland. The individual who had farmed the land brought an action against the sellers and the purchaser, arguing he had a right to renew his lease and a right of first refusal to stop the sale. The jury returned a verdict in favor of the defense. We successfully defended that verdict on appeal. The North Dakota Supreme Court affirmed, reasoning that there was evidence from which the jury could find the farmer had waived his right to renew the lease and that the right of first refusal expired before the sale occurred.
Non-Family Law
King’s Cove Marina, LLC v. Lambert Com. Constr. LLC, 22 N.W.3d 581 (Minn. Ct. App. 2025)
This long-pending case finally came to an end this year. In 2021, the Minnesota Supreme Court decided that the Miller-Shugart agreement was not per se unreasonable when it failed to allocate between covered and uncovered claims. King’s Cove Marina, LLC v. Lambert Com. Constr. LLC, 958 N.W.2d 310 (Minn. 2021). On remand, the district court considered the evidence and made a determination of how a reasonable person in the position of the insured would have allocated between covered and uncovered claims at the time of the settlement. The plaintiff appealed the district court’s allocation. The appeal raised several issues, including what evidence could be considered in making the allocation, what standard of review the appellate court should apply, and whether the plaintiff’s recovery is limited to the amount the district court found should be allocated to covered claims. We secured a favorable result from the Court of Appeals and the Supreme Court denied further review.
Benchmark Invs., LLC v. Mark, No. A25-0039, 2025 WL 2437198 (Minn. Ct. App. Aug. 25, 2025)
This case involved the interpretation of a residential lease. The would-be tenants never took possession of the property because the landlord failed to remove personal items from the premises. The landlord relied on an “as-is” clause in the lease agreement to argue that any items on the premises at the time the lease was signed could remain there throughout the duration of the lease. The trial court agreed with the landlord and granted him summary judgment. We successfully obtained reversal from the Court of Appeals, which held there were genuine issues of material fact regarding whether the “as-is” clause applied to personal property and, if so, whether the landlord’s actions constituted a material breach of the lease.
Family Law
Tietz v. Tietz, No. 2024AP1025, 2025 WL 3145502 (Wis. Ct. App. Nov. 11, 2025)
This case involved child abuse injunctions that had been issued against the father after 24 hearings in the circuit court over the span of six months. We successfully obtained reversal, with the Wisconsin Court of Appeals concluding there were no reasonable grounds to issue the child abuse injunctions. Because it found there was insufficient evidence to justify the child abuse injunctions, it declined to address the question of whether the circuit court was required to rule within 14 days of the petition. However, the Court did emphasize that “the best practice” was for the circuit court to decide a petition for a child abuse injunction within 14 days.
Desmond v. Desmond, No. A24-0456, 2025 WL 30294 (Minn. Ct. App. Jan. 6, 2025)
This was a fact-specific child custody appeal in which the key issue was whether the evidence supported the trial court’s findings that the father had improved his previously problematic behavior. We represented the father on appeal and successfully obtained affirmance of the trial court’s decision.
An Update From the 2024 Year in Review
Last year we mentioned Nordahl v. Nordahl, 2024 WL 3565645 (Minn. Ct. App. 2024), in which the Court of Appeals addressed the question of whether an employer’s contributions to an Employee Stock Ownership Plan (ESOP) can be counted as income to the spousal maintenance recipient when the employer makes the contribution, even though the employee makes no contribution and cannot immediately withdraw the funds. The Court of Appeals remanded the case for further fact finding by the trial court. Upon remand, the trial court made further findings and concluded again that the employer’s contribution to the ESOP does not meet the statutory definition of gross income. The case has now returned to the Court of Appeals and a decision is expected in early 2026.
Lommen Abdo’s appellate team wishes you a happy holiday season. We’ll be back in 2026 with more interesting cases to share!