Harry N. Ray, Ltd. v. Nascene

2 Citing cases

  1. Harry N. Ray, Ltd. v. First Nat. Bank

    410 N.W.2d 850 (Minn. Ct. App. 1987)   Cited 14 times
    Stating that district court "may not . . . decide issues beyond those remanded"

    The first appeal involved a third-party action by First National Bank of Pine City (the Bank) against Sheldon Nascene for reimbursement of legal fees incurred by Harry N. Ray, Ltd. in collection of defaulted loans Nascene had originally approved while he was president of the Bank. In Harry N. Ray, Ltd. v. Nascene, 379 N.W.2d 249 (Minn.Ct.App. 1986), we held that Nascene's obligation to indemnify the Bank for fees incurred in collection of the second borrower's loan was not supported by the evidence or findings of fact. Judgment for the Bank was reversed and the case was remanded with directions to enter judgment in an amount stipulated to represent outstanding legal fees incurred in collection of the first borrower's loans.

  2. In re Petition of Option One Mortgage

    No. A07-1654 (Minn. Ct. App. Sep. 2, 2008)

    Where appropriate, we have remanded cases to district courts with express instructions to consider extrinsic evidence in determining the intent of the parties to a contract. See, e.g., Harry N. Ray, Ltd. v. Nascene, 379 N.W.2d 249, 252 (Minn.App. 1986) (remanding to the district court to "consider extrinsic evidence and determine the intent of the parties"). But in this matter, we did not remand with instructions to consider extrinsic evidence; we remanded merely for further proceedings consistent with our holding that Section 8(b) in Article IV was "contradictory and ambiguous," and that the ambiguity was chargeable to Timeline.