Opinion
A22-0665
02-16-2023
Hassuneh Properties, LLC, Appellant, v. Bayda M. Yaseen, et al., Respondents, Ali Hassuneh, et al., Plaintiffs, Nawal Al-Quaisi, Defendant.
Dakota County District Court File No. 19HA-CV-19-5438
Considered and decided by Worke, Presiding Judge; Smith, Tracy M., Judge; and Cochran, Judge.
ORDER OPINION
Renee L. Worke, Judge.
BASED ON THE FILE, RECORD, AND PROCEEDINGS, AND BECAUSE:
1. Respondent Bayda M. Yaseen is the sole organizer, registered agent, and member of respondent Bayda, LLC (BLLC), formed in July 2016. In 2017, BLLC purchased a strip mall and began receiving rent from the strip mall's commercial tenants.
2. In September 2019, Yaseen's estranged spouse, Abed Hassuneh, recorded a quitclaim deed purportedly signed by Yaseen and purporting to convey the strip mall to appellant Hassuneh Properties, LLC. After the commercial tenants continued paying rent to BLLC despite direction from Abed to pay Hassuneh Properties, Hassuneh Properties sued Yaseen and BLLC, seeking, among other things, a declaratory judgment that the quitclaim deed is valid. Following a bench trial, the district court found "a mountain of evidence" proving the quitclaim deed a forgery.
Several individuals involved in this matter share the last name Hassuneh. We refer to those individuals by first name for clarity and brevity.
3. Hassuneh Properties asserts on appeal that the district court clearly erred by finding the quitclaim deed forged. A district court's findings of fact "shall not be set aside unless clearly erroneous, and due regard shall be given to the opportunity of the [district] court to judge the credibility of the witnesses." Minn. R. Civ. P. 52.01. Clear-error review is designed "to confirm that evidence exists to support the decision." In re Civ. Commitment of Kenney, 963 N.W.2d 214, 222 (Minn. 2021). Under clear-error review, we view the evidence in the light most favorable to the findings and do not weigh the evidence, reconcile conflicting evidence, assess witness credibility, or find facts. Id. at 221-23.
4. At trial, Abed's father, Ali, and an associate of his who notarized the quitclaim deed testified that they were present when Yaseen allegedly signed the quitclaim deed on September 22, 2019, at the residence of Abed's brother, Jamal. The associate testified that the signing occurred "sometime maybe in the afternoon." Abed and Yaseen's son similarly testified that Yaseen brought him to Jamal's house that day around 2:00 p.m., entered the house, and signed some papers before she left.
5. But Yaseen denied signing the quitclaim deed and refuted all this testimony. She testified that although she dropped her and Abed's children off at Jamal's house on September 22, 2019, it was "later at night" when she did so, she was shopping when she allegedly signed the quitclaim deed-a claim she supported with time-stamped receipts- and she never entered the house. The district court found the credibility of Hassuneh Properties' witnesses "shattered" and found Yaseen "vastly more credible." We defer to this judgment and conclude that the district court did not clearly err by finding the quitclaim deed forged.
6. Hassuneh Properties asserts that the district court clearly erred by finding that Yaseen and Abed's son testified that he remembered at what time the quitclaim-deed signing occurred because he checked his watch at the time. But based on the whole record, the district court could reasonably find "a mountain" of other evidence supporting a finding of forgery that we need not discuss here. See id. at 222 (noting that appellate courts "need not go into an extended discussion of the evidence to . . . demonstrate the correctness of" the district court's findings (quotation omitted)). Any clear error underlying the district court's finding of forgery was harmless and does not merit reversal. Minn. R. Civ. P. 61 (stating that we "must disregard any error" that does not affect substantial rights).
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.