Burns & Hansen Secures Two Appellate Reversals at the Minnesota Court of Appeals

Burns & Hansen is proud to share that the Minnesota Court of Appeals recently issued two favorable decisions on behalf of our clients, reversing lower court rulings in both matters and remanding the cases for further proceedings. 

Although each case involved very different scenarios and legal issues, both decisions reflect our commitment to protecting our clients’ rights on appeal and ensuring that district courts properly apply Minnesota law to every matter. 

Protecting Parental Rights in a Complex Child Protection Matter

In In re the Paternity of a Female Child (A25-0751), Burns & Hansen represented R.M.M., a putative father seeking to establish his parental rights. 

This case involved a unique and complex intersection of family law, child protection law, and constitutional principles. After the child’s birth, the district court terminated parental rights early in the proceedings. R.M.M., who had taken the right steps, having registered with the Minnesota Fathers’ Adoption Registry and sought to establish paternity, filed a parentage action and requested genetic testing. 

The district court denied his request and dismissed the case. On appeal, our team argued that Minnesota law required the court to order genetic testing once a potential biological father establishes a reasonable possibility of paternity. The Court of Appeals agreed, holding that the district court misapplied the law and was required to grant the request for genetic testing. 

The appellate court reversed the decision and remanded the matter, providing R.M.M. with a clear path to claim his parental rights. 

This appeal represents a substantial victory for our client. It ensures that he will have the opportunity to establish paternity through genetic testing and pursue his parental rights in accordance with Minnesota law. 

The case also reflects a successful collaboration with Scott Berry of Berry Law Offices. Mr. Berry took the lead in district court proceedings, with Burns & Hansen consulting. On appeal, we led the appellate strategy and briefing, with Mr. Berry consulting. Now that the matter will return to district court for further proceedings, Berry Law Offices will once again take the lead, with our team assisting as needed. 

This partnership underscores our firm’s commitment to working collaboratively with trial counsel across Minnesota. In greater Minnesota communities where there are fewer appellate practitioners, we are proud to partner with firms seeking experienced appellate advocacy while maintaining continuity for their clients. 

Burns & Hansen Attorneys on this case:

Securing Reversal in a Business Litigation Appeal

In MJ Property Holdings, LLC v. Solv-All Alliance Group, LLC and Scott A. Marincek (A25-1238), Burns & Hansen represented Scott Marincek in a business litigation appeal involving corporate veil piercing and summary judgment. 

The district court granted summary judgment against Mr. Marincek after the responsive documents were not filed within the required timeframe. Rather than analyzing whether genuine issues of material fact existed, the district court treated the missed deadline as grounds to dispose of the case. 

On appeal, our team argued that summary judgment cannot be granted as a procedural sanction without applying the legal standards required under Minnesota Rule of Civil Procedure 56. The Court of Appeals agreed, holding that the district court abused its discretion by granting summary judgment without making the necessary findings or conducting the required legal analysis. 

The Court reversed and remanded the matter for further proceedings. 

While the legal issue in this case is more common than in the R.M.M. matter, the decision is significant. It reinforces that dispositive motions must be decided on their merits and that courts must make the findings required by law before entering judgment. It also highlights the importance of experienced appellate advocacy in identifying procedural errors and securing relief for clients when those errors occur. 

Burns & Hansen regularly handles appeals in civil litigation matters, including cases involving summary judgment, procedural irregularities, and failures by district courts to apply the correct legal standards. This decision demonstrates our ability to identify reversible errors and effectively present those issues to the appellate courts. 

Burns & Hansen Attorneys on this case:

Appellate Work Across Practice Areas 

Appeals involve a separate set of rules and considerations and require a unique legal approach. The work isn’t about relitigating what happened at trial — it’s about identifying the right issues, reading statutes closely, and making a careful case to judges who are evaluating the record, not the witnesses. It takes a different kind of attention, and a different kind of patience. 

The two decisions we’re sharing today — both issued on the same day — come from opposite ends of our practice: one involving family and child protection matters, the other complex civil litigation. Different facts, different stakes, but the same underlying work of building a careful, well-reasoned argument for a reviewing court. 

We also collaborated with trial counsel on both matters, which we find can make a noticeable difference in results and client experience. When appellate and trial attorneys are working together rather than handing things off, clients often get better continuity and fewer gaps in their representation. 

Across these cases, the goal was the same: make sure our clients’ interests are protected at every stage, not just at the trial level. 

If a district court ruling didn’t go the way you expected, or you’re wondering whether an appeal is worth pursuing, we’re happy to talk it through. Contact Burns & Hansen today.