Opinion
A22-0286
06-02-2023
Parkland Estates Homeowner's Association, Respondent, v. Jill McGrand, Defendant, Alex Mehralian, Appellant.
Office of Appellate Courts
Hennepin County District Court File No. 27-CV-17-17497
Considered and decided by Johnson, Presiding Judge; Gaitas, Judge; and Larson, Judge.
ORDER OPINION
Matthew E. Johnson, Judge
BASED ON THE FILE, RECORD, AND PROCEEDINGS, AND BECAUSE:
1. This case was commenced in the district court nearly six years ago and has a complicated procedural history. For purposes of this appeal, we isolate and summarize the relevant facts as follows.
2. In November 2017, Parkland Estates Homeowner's Association commenced the action by asserting a foreclosure-by-action claim against Jill McGrand, who then was married to Alex Mehralian, based on an overdue assessment of $3,906 on the condominium unit she then owned. McGrand asserted a counterclaim under the Americans with Disabilities Act in a handwritten, pro se pleading, which also was signed by Mehralian. McGrand passed away in March 2018. It appears that there has not been a formal substitution of parties since McGrand's death. See Minn. R. Civ. P. 25.01. But it also appears that the district court and Parkland's attorneys effectively have treated Mehralian as a party to the action.
3. In November 2019, the district court granted Parkland's motion for summary judgment. The district court concluded that Parkland was entitled to foreclose on its lien on the condominium unit and that McGrand's counterclaim did not survive her death. Judgment was entered. Mehralian filed a notice of appeal. In January 2020, this court dismissed the appeal because Mehralian did not pay the filing fee. Parkland Estates Homeowner's Ass'n v. McGrand, No. A19-1880 (Minn.App. Jan. 2, 2020) (order).
4. After the dismissal of his appeal, Mehralian filed approximately 18 motions with the district court administrator. In March 2020, Parkland moved to designate Mehralian a frivolous litigant. See Minn. R. Gen. Prac. 9. In March 2021, the district court granted the motion. The district court summarized its reasons for designating Mehralian a frivolous litigant as follows:
Mehralian has repeatedly attempted to relitigate Parkland's judgment against Defendant and repeatedly sought to reinstate his purported counterclaims against Parkland-the validity of both of which have been finally determined. Mehralian also filed frequent and numerous meritless filings in an attempt to delay and obstruct the proceedings in this case. Finally, he has instituted and maintained claims against Parkland and its agents in federal court and in state court in an apparent effort to harass or delay.
As a sanction, the district court ordered that Mehralian may not file any documents with the district court administrator unless the documents are signed by an attorney or Mehralian has obtained prior judicial approval.
5. In September 2021, the sheriff conducted a public auction of the condominium unit pursuant to the district court's November 2019 order and judgment. Parkland submitted the highest bid. Parkland moved to confirm the sale. In February 2022, the district court granted Parkland's motion and confirmed the sale. Judgment was entered. Mehralian filed a notice of appeal.
6. Mehralian's pro se brief contains three arguments.
7. First, Mehralian argues that the district court erred in November 2019 by granting Parkland's motion for summary judgment. He argues that the district court's order is contrary to Minnesota Statutes section 524.3-703(c). That statute provides:
Except as to proceedings which do not survive the death of the decedent, a personal representative of a decedent domiciled in this state at death has the same standing to sue and be sued in the courts of this state and the courts of any other jurisdiction as the decedent had immediately prior to death.Minn. Stat. § 524.3-703(c) (2022). Whether McGrand's counterclaim against Parkland survived her death is an issue that the district court expressly discussed in its summary judgment order in November 2019, and the district court resolved that issue in favor of Parkland. Judgment was entered on the district court's order. That judgment was a final judgment, which was appealable at that time. See T.A. Schifsky &Sons, Inc. v. Bahr Constr., LLC, 773 N.W.2d 783, 788 (Minn. 2009). Mehralian attempted an appeal, but the appeal was dismissed. Thus, Mehralian's attempt to challenge the November 2019 judgment in this appeal is untimely. See id.; see also Favorite v. Minneapolis St. Ry. Co., 91 N.W.2d 459, 463 (Minn. 1958).
8. Second, Mehralian argues that the district court erred in February 2022 by granting Parkland's motion to confirm the sheriff's sale, again on the ground that the district court's order is contrary to Minnesota Statutes section 524.3-703(c). Mehralian was represented by an attorney at the time of Parkland's motion to confirm the sheriff's sale, and his attorney filed a memorandum of law on Mehralian's behalf, but the memorandum does not contain any argument based on section 524.3-703(c). Consequently, Mehralian has not properly preserved the argument that the confirmation of the sheriff's sale is inconsistent with section 524.3-703(c). Because Mehralian has forfeited the argument, we will not consider it. See Thiele v. Stich, 425 N.W.2d 580, 582 (Minn. 1988).
9. Third, Mehralian argues that the district court erred in March 2021 by granting Parkland's motion to designate him a frivolous litigant. He argues that the order violates his right to self-representation under the Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution. Mehralian did not respond to Parkland's motion to designate him a frivolous litigant and did not appear at the hearing on the motion and, thus, did not present his Sixth Amendment argument to the district court. Consequently, Mehralian has forfeited the argument, and we will not consider it. See id. In any event, the argument plainly is without merit because the Sixth Amendment applies only in a criminal prosecution, not in a civil case such as this case. See U.S. Const. amend. VI.
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED:
1. The district court's judgment is affirmed.
2. Pursuant to Minn. R. Civ. App. P. 136.01, subd. 1(c), this order opinion is nonprecedential, except as law of the case, res judicata, or collateral estoppel.