First Nat. Bank of Windom v. Rosenkranz, C3-88-1841
| Decision Date | 18 October 1988 |
| Docket Number | No. C3-88-1841,C3-88-1841 |
| Citation | 430 N.W.2d 267 |
| Parties | FIRST NATIONAL BANK OF WINDOM, Windom, Minnesota, Respondent, v. James ROSENKRANZ, d/b/a Verchota Furniture, Appellant. |
| Court | Minnesota Court of Appeals |
Syllabus by the Court
1. Partial judgment is not appealable until entry of a final judgment adjudicating all remaining claims, where the trial court has not made an express determination that there is no just reason for delay and directed entry of a final partial judgment pursuant to Minn.R.Civ.App.P. 104.01 and Minn.R.Civ.P. 54.02.
2. A trial court's decision whether to make the express determination, to allow immediate appeal of a partial judgment, falls within its discretion.
Daniel M. McDonald, Ruenitz, Gudmestad, Gross & McDonald, Windom, for respondent.
Clyde E. Miller, Parris, Miller & Maus, Hector, for appellant.
Considered at Special Term and decided by WOZNIAK, C.J., and LANSING and KALITOWSKI, JJ., without oral argument.
SPECIAL TERM OPINION
Respondent First National Bank of Windom brought a replevin action against appellant James Rosenkranz, d/b/a Verchota Furniture, and sought a deficiency judgment for the unpaid balance on a promissory note. First National Bank had previously obtained property from Rosenkranz by replevin order, which was sold. Rosenkranz counterclaimed, asserting wrongful interference with business relationships, wrongful repossession, and negligent and intentional infliction of emotional distress.
First National Bank moved for summary judgment and Rosenkranz moved to amend his answer and counterclaim. By summary judgment entered June 2, 1988 the trial court dismissed Rosenkranz's counterclaims and granted First National's motion, finding Rosenkranz breached the terms of the promissory note. The trial court directed that the question of a deficiency judgment for the bank and the issue of the commercial reasonableness of the sale of replevied property be resolved after an additional hearing.
Rosenkranz seeks review of the June 2 judgment. This court questioned jurisdiction and directed the parties to file memoranda on whether the June 2 judgment was a final appealable judgment adjudicating all claims in the action.
A partial judgment which fails to adjudicate all claims in an action is not immediately appealable unless the trial court has made an express determination that there is no just reason for delay and directed entry of a final partial judgment pursuant to Minn.R.Civ.App.P. 104.01 and Minn.R.Civ.P. 54.02. Olmscheid v. Minneapolis Northfield & Southern Railway, 425 N.W.2d 312, 313 (Minn.Ct.App.1988). Absent the express determination required by the rules, a partial judgment is not appealable until entry of a final judgment adjudicating all remaining claims in the action. Id. The bank's claim for a deficiency judgment and Rosenkranz's claim that the sale of his property was not commercially reasonable remain. The trial court did not make the determination that an immediate appeal was appropriate.
Rosenkranz claims that after entry of the June 2 judgment he moved the trial court to make the express determination pursuant to Minn.R.Civ.P. 54.02 and Minn.R.Civ.App.P. 104.01, but the court refused. A decision...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Hoyt Properties v. Production Resource, No. A05-1293.
...there is no just reason for delay and expressly directs the entry of judgment. Minn. R. Civ. P. 54.02; First Nat'l Bank of Windom v. Rosenkranz, 430 N.W.2d 267, 268 (Minn. App.1988). The district court has discretion on whether to make the express determination required for immediate review......
-
T&R Flooring, LLC v. O'Byrne
...the question whether the absence of an immediate appeal would cause prejudice to either party. See First Nat'l Bank of Windom v. Rosenkranz, 430 N.W.2d 267, 268 (Minn.App.1988). This court applies a de novo standard of review to the first determination, i.e., the question whether a final pa......
-
Sterling State Bank v. Maas Commercial Props., LLC
...question whether the absence of an immediate appeal would cause prejudice to either party.” Id. (quoting First Nat'l Bank of Windom v. Rosenkranz, 430 N.W.2d 267, 268 (Minn.App.1988)). With respect to the second step, the supreme court has made clear that district courts should not “automat......
-
Sterling State Bank v. Maas Commercial Props., LLC
...question whether the absence of an immediate appeal would cause prejudice to either party." Id. (quoting First Nat'l Bank of Windom v. Rosenkranz, 430 N.W.2d 267, 268 (Minn. App. 1988)). With respect to the second step, the supreme court has made clear that district courts should not "autom......