INTERNAL PROTOTYPE — NOT LEGAL ADVICE — DO NOT SEND

§ 491A

Citation
§ 491A
Parent Document
Andrew Kaeding v. Karl Auleciems, Susanne Auleciems, 886 N.W.2d 658 (2016)
Jurisdiction
Minnesota (state)
Effective Date
2016-10-31
Original Source
https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/4316783/andrew-kaeding-v-karl-auleciems... ↗

Other Sections in This Document (278)

Full Text

941 chars 
[Respondents] appear to have attempted to resolve the
              case as quickly as possible at each turn. [Appellants] have
              repeatedly prolonged and complicated this case. Rather than
              go directly to trial after losing most claims on summary
              judgment, [appellants] chose to increase their demands by
              adding a legally and factually baseless claim for the alleged
              diminution of value to the Premises, without properly filing
              any pleadings with this court. Clearly, the diminution of value
              claim was an attempt to weaken [respondents’] resolve with
              the specter of a financially crippling monetary judgment.
              [Respondents] were entirely within their rights to take these
              claims seriously, and invest in more time, discovery, research,
              trial preparation, and a trial. This appeal followed.3