Losoya v. Richardson

6 Citing cases

  1. In re the Matter of Turner

    653 N.W.2d 458 (Minn. Ct. App. 2002)   Cited 15 times
    Discussing nature of fraud contemplated by rule 60.02(c)

    Interpretation of the Parentage Act is a question of law, which we review de novo. Losoya v. Richardson, 584 N.W.2d 425, 427 (Minn.App. 1998); R.B. v. C.S., 536 N.W.2d 634, 637 (Minn.App. 1995). The Parentage Act sets out various circumstances under which a man is legally presumed to be the father of a child.

  2. Vogel v. State

    No. A05-526 (Minn. Ct. App. Mar. 7, 2006)

    See Coolen v. State, 288 Minn. 44, 50-51, 179 N.W.2d 81, 86 (1970) (denying postconviction relief when defendant asserted that he only pleaded guilty because he was promised a reduced sentence; nothing in the record supported defendant's assertions on appeal, and they directly contradicted his sworn testimony at the plea hearing); State v. Hamilton, 280 Minn. 21, 23-24, 157 N.W.2d 528, 529 (1968). We also note that even sworn statements made in an affidavit appended to a brief will not be considered on appeal if not presented to the district court. Losoya v. Richardson, 584 N.W.2d 425, 430 (Minn.App. 1998). Thus, this claim lacks a factual basis for consideration on appeal, and the record is devoid of evidence which might support such a claim.

  3. In re Marriage of Rakos

    No. A03-96 (Minn. Ct. App. Aug. 19, 2003)

    Documents not included in the district court record, and all references to those documents, shall be stricken from an appellate appendix and brief. Losoya v. Richardson, 584 N.W.2d 425, 430 (Minn.App. 1998). Because that letter was not admitted to the trial court record, respondent's motion to strike the letter and all references to it is granted.

  4. In re Matter of Maestas

    No. CX-03-123 (Minn. Ct. App. Jul. 22, 2003)

    Default judgments are to be liberally reopened to promote resolution of cases on the merits, especially in paternity cases. See Losoya v. Richardson, 584 N.W.2d 425, 429-30 (Minn.App. 1998) (noting emphasis courts place on accurate paternity determinations). But the right to be relieved of a judgment is not absolute.

  5. Monmouth County v. D.J.D

    344 N.J. Super. 74 (N.J. Super. 2001)   Cited 4 times
    Holding that although putative father was not to be reimbursed by division, he could seek reimbursement from biological father pursuant to New Jersey statute

    child's father does not deny the county any right deserving protection.' Losoya v. Richardson, 584 N.W.2d 425, 429 (Minn.Ct.App. 1998). [Monmouth County Div. of Soc. Servs. ex rel. Hall, supra at 197, 721 A.2d 738.]

  6. Monmouth County Social Serv. v. P.A.Q

    317 N.J. Super. 187 (App. Div. 1998)   Cited 17 times
    Describing form of verification required by Rule 1:4-7

    As another jurisdiction has recently recognized, "denying the county the opportunity to collect child support from a man who it knows is not the child's father does not deny the county any right deserving protection." Losoya v. Richardson, 584 N.W.2d 425, 429 (Minn.Ct.App. 1998). Significantly it is unclear on this record what, if any, legal impediment exists to MCDSS's seeking to recover the money from the actual biological father.