Opinion
A22-0383
12-06-2022
Tsering Dorjee, Appellant, v. Tenzin Norsang Panamserkhang, Respondent.
Ramsey County District Court File No. 62-CV-20-4570
Considered and decided by Worke, Presiding Judge; Smith, Tracy M., Judge; and Wheelock, Judge.
ORDER OPINION
TRACY M. SMITH, JUDGE
BASED ON THE FILE, RECORD, AND PROCEEDINGS, AND BECAUSE:
1. Appellant Tsering Dorjee challenges the district court's decision, following a bench trial, that he failed to prove his breach-of-contract claim against respondent Tenzin Norsang Panamserkhang. We affirm.
2. Dorjee sued Panamserkhang, alleging that Dorjee lent Panamserkhang $60,000 to be put toward his new home and that Panamserkhang failed to repay him. Panamserkhang denied that he ever borrowed any money from Dorjee.
3. The district court held a one-day bench trial and issued its written findings of fact, conclusions of law, and order. In its findings, the district court explained that Panamserkhang and his wife were living with Dorjee when they decided to buy their own home. The district court described the two parties' differing versions of events relating to the down payment for that home. According to Dorjee, Panamserkhang approached him because he needed a $60,000 loan for part of the down payment, but the money had to be characterized to his bank lender as a bona fide gift. At Panamserkhang's request, Dorjee lent Panamserkhang the money in the form of a cashier's check and executed a "gift letter" that falsely stated that the men were brothers and that the money was a gift, not a loan. According to Panamserkhang, Dorjee gave him the $60,000 cashier's check in exchange for $50,000 in cash and a $10,000 check. Panamserkhang claimed that Dorjee agreed to this transaction because Dorjee thought that converting money from his bank account into untraceable cash would give him an advantage in his marital-dissolution proceedings.
4. The district court concluded that Dorjee failed to establish his claim for breach of a loan agreement. The district court found that the parties agreed that they produced the $60,000 gift letter knowing that it was false and that Panamserkhang's bank lender would rely on it. It also found that the parties' explanations for the letter, while different, "evidence an intent to defraud and a comfort level with untruthfulness that gives the Court pause in believing the testimony of either party." It further found that the parties intended their transaction to be undocumented and opaque, in part because they were using it to launder funds to disadvantage Dorjee's soon-to-be ex-wife. The district court described the conflicting and confusing trial testimony and documentary evidence and said that it could not determine "what the parties agreed to or what happened." Thus, the district court reasoned, because Dorjee had the burden of proof, he had failed to establish his breach-of-contract claim.
5. Dorjee appeals. In his short pro se brief, he re-argues some of the evidence, asserts that Panamserkhang testified untruthfully at trial, and argues that Dorjee is owed $39,195, plus other fees and costs, for his "mental, physical and time compensation." Dorjee cites no legal authority in support of his arguments.
6. "An assignment of error based on mere assertion and not supported by any argument or authorities in appellant's brief is [forfeited] and will not be considered on appeal unless prejudicial error is obvious on mere inspection." Louden v. Louden, 22 N.W.2d 164, 166 (Minn. 1946). This principle applies to Dorjee's appeal even though he is self-represented. See Fitzgerald v. Fitzgerald, 629 N.W.2d 115, 119 (Minn.App. 2001) (stating that, "[a]lthough some accommodations may be made for pro se litigants, this court has repeatedly emphasized that pro se litigants are generally held to the same standards as attorneys and must comply with court rules"). Therefore, Dorjee's unsupported assignments of error are forfeited, and we must determine whether mere inspection reveals the presence of obvious prejudicial error. Louden, 22 N.W.2d at 166.
7. Our inspection is limited by the lack of a trial transcript on appeal. An appellant has the burden to provide an adequate record. Noltimier v. Noltimier, 157 N.W.2d 530, 531 (Minn. 1968). While the lack of a transcript does not automatically require dismissal of an entire appeal, the absence of a transcript limits the scope of appellate review to whether the district court's conclusions of law are supported by its findings of fact. Duluth Herald & News Tribune v. Plymouth Optical Co., 176 N.W.2d 552, 555 (Minn. 1970).
8. Our review of the district court's findings of fact, conclusions of law, and order confirms that the district court's conclusions of law are supported by its factual findings. Thus, there is no obvious prejudicial error. To the extent that Dorjee attempts to challenge the district court's factual findings as clearly erroneous, that argument is beyond the scope of our review given the absence of a trial transcript. See Ayers v. Ayers, 508 N.W.2d 515, 518, 521 (Minn. 1993) (concluding that factual findings were not clearly erroneous because they were adequately supported by the record). In any event, it is clear from the district court's findings that its decision turned largely on its determination that neither Dorjee nor Panamserkhang was credible, and we defer to a district court's credibility determinations. See Sefkow v. Sefkow, 427 N.W.2d 203, 210 (Minn. 1988).
9. As a final matter, the district court did conclude that Dorjee proved that Panamserkhang owed him $335 for a cable bill-a claim that Panamserkhang conceded- and ordered judgment in that amount. Dorjee asks this court to enforce the district court's $335 judgment. The district court "retains jurisdiction as to matters independent of, supplemental to, or collateral to the order or judgment appealed from." Minn. R. Civ. App. P. 108.01, subd. 2. Collateral matters include enforcement of a judgment. David N. Volkmann Constr., Inc. v. Isaacs, 428 N.W.2d 875, 876-77 (Minn.App. 1988). Because Dorjee can pursue enforcement in the district court, we do not address Dorjee's request.
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED:
1. The district court's order 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.