Agenda - Council - 03/28/1989 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

668 Minn. 420 NORTH WESTERN REPORTER, 2d SERIES police patrols of liquor establishments are concentrated, would unduly burden its lim- ited police resources. III The city claims it is entitled to attorney's fees on appeal because Bergmann's appeal was frivolous, under Minn. Stat.§ 549.21, subd. 2 (1986). The city contends that Bergmann admitted that "his failure to pay the taxes was a sufficient ground for deni- al of his application." Although we could have affirmed the denial of the liquor li- censes solely on the basis of the unpaid taxes, Bergmann did not make the claimed concession. We do not deem this appeal frivolous. Accordingly, we deny the re- quest for attorney's fees. DECISION Affirmed. Chester JUNAK, et al., Appellants, V. Roman JOllN, et al., Defendants, First National Bank of Long Prairie, Respondent. No. C9-87-1977. Court of Appeals of Minnesota. March 15, 1988. Review Denied May 16, 1988. Vendor brought action to cancel con- tract for deed, alleging various defaults. After purchasers asserted they were enti- tled to setoff amount claimed under prior suit for breach of covenant not to compete against any amounts claimed by vendors to be due under contract, the District Court, Todd County, Donald Gray, J., ruled that purchasers were not entitled to setoff, and appeal Was taken. Tile Court of Appeals, Foley, J., held that: (i) purchasers of im- plement business were not entitled to set- off their damages from vendors' alleged breach of covenant not to compete against amount claimed to be due on contract for deed after debt created by vendors' alleged breach was discharged in bankruptcy, and (2) dismissing action alleging breach of cov- enant not to compete before suit was called for trial was error. Affirmed in part, reversed in part and remanded. 1. Set-Off and Counterclaim ~=8(1) "Setoff" is equitable doctrine which courts may use at their discretion. See publication Words and Phrases for other judicial constructions and dcfinitlons. 2. Bankruptcy ~=2363 Discharge of debt in bankruptcy acts as bar to all attempts to collect debt, re- gard]ess of whether these attempts are characterized as active or passive collection efforts; collection of debts discharged in bankruptcy, regardless of method, is con- trary to fresh start afforded debtor under Bankruptcy Code. Bankr. Code, 11 U.S.C. A. § 101 et seq. 3. Bankruptcy ~=~2365 Purchasers of implement business were not entitled to setoff their damages from vendors' alleged breach of covenant not to compete against amount claimed to be due on contract for deed, after debt created by vendors' alleged breach was dis- charged in bankruptcy. Bankr. Code, 11 U.S.C.A. § 101 et seq. 4. Pretrial Procedure ~:~673 Dismissing action alleging breach of covenant not to compete before suit was called for trial was error. Syllabus by the Court 1. Trial court correctly refused to al- low setoff of debt discharged in bankrupt- cy against amount claimed due on contract for deed. 2. Trial court erred in dismissing a suit that had not been called to trial.