The implication of Frank is that a party's failure to move for amended findings results in a forfeiture of the argument that the district court's findings are incomplete or inadequate. See Anderson v. Peterson's N. Branch Mill, Inc., 503 N.W.2d 517, 518-19 (Minn. App. 1993) (declining to review adequacy of findings and conclusions of law because appellant did not move for amended findings); Pacific Mut. Door Co. v. James, 465 N.W.2d 696, 701 (Minn. App. 1991) (same); Love v. Amsler, 441 N.W.2d 555, 560 (Minn. App. 1989) (same), review denied (Minn. Aug. 15, 1989).
(Def.'s Opp. Br. at 35-36 (citing Love v. Amsler , 441 N.W.2d 555, 558 (Minn. Ct. App. 1989) ). In making this argument, Decker notes that Great West sued him for declaratory relief in federal court (allegedly as part of its "fraudulent scheme"), and thus injured him by forcing him to incur attorney's fees.
g other cases or appeals. See, e.g.,In reMartin-Trigona, 9 F.3d 226, 229-30 (2d Cir.1993) (approving “leave to file" requirement with respect to future filings); In re Burnley, 988 F.2d 1, 3-4 (4th Cir.1992) (approving trial court order imposing pre-filing screening on litigant); Cofield v. Alabama Pub. Serv. Comm'n, 936 F.2d 512, 518 (11th Cir.1991) (approving pre-filing screening of litigant's future claims); Mayfield v.Collins, 918 F.2d 560, 561-62 (5th Cir.1990) (imposing requirement that litigant must receive authorization from judge for future filings); In re Davis, 878 F.2d 211, 213 (7th Cir.1989) (approving trial court order requiring judicial committee to determine whether litigant may file future documents); Stich v. United States, 773 F.Supp. 469, 471 (D.D.C.1991) , aff'd, 976 F.2d 1445 (D.C.Cir.1992) (requiring litigant to obtain leave of court before filing future claims); Love v. Amsler, 441 N.W.2d 555, 560 (Minn.Ct.App.1989) (condoning requirement that abusive litigant obtain approval before filing claims). Such “leave of court" requirements have been widely approved on appellate review because they do not automatically preclude a litigant from filing any type of appeal but merely subject the appeal to pre-filing scrutiny to ensure that the appeal is not frivolous or filed for the purpose of harassing the opposing party or the court.
But given the July 30, 2003 prohibition against husband bringing any further motions based on the theory that wife concealed assets during the dissolution proceeding, we construe the failure to address the fraud claims as a finding that the fraud claims were prohibited. The district court may limit or preclude the initiation of vexatious litigation. See, e.g., State ex rel. Ryan v. Cahill, 253 Minn. 131, 134, 91 N.W.2d 144, 147 (1958) ("[i]t is well settled that the courts of this state will act to enjoin vexatious litigation"); Love v. Amsler, 441 N.W.2d 555, 560 (Minn.App. 1989) (requiring party to obtain judicial permission to file future lawsuit was "reasonable way to curb [the party's] . . . abuse of the system without unduly restricting his right of access to the courts"), review denied (Minn. Aug. 15, 1989); Liedtke v. Fillenworth, 372 N.W.2d 50, 52 (Minn.App. 1985) ("trial court acted within its discretion by enjoining appellant from continuing this series of vexatious lawsuits"), review denied (Minn.
Rent abatement is a permissible remedy for a landlord's illegal rental of an uninhabitable apartment. See Love v. Amsler, 441 N.W.2d 555, 559-60 (Minn.App. 1989), review denied (Minn. Aug. 15, 1989) (affirming district court's damages award of previously paid rent for landlord's rental of apartment in unsafe condition).
The district court may limit or preclude the initiation of vexatious litigation. See, e.g.,State ex rel. Ryan v. Cahill, 253 Minn. 131, 134, 91 N.W.2d 144, 147 (1958) ("[i]t is well settled that the courts of this state will act to enjoin vexatious litigation"); Love v. Amsler, 441 N.W.2d 555, 560 (Minn.App. 1989) (requiring party to obtain judicial permission to file future lawsuit was "reasonable way to curb [the party's] * * * abuse of the system without unduly restricting his right of access to the courts"), review denied (Minn. Aug. 15, 1989); Liedtke v. Fillenworth, 372 N.W.2d 50, 52 (Minn.App. 1985) ("trial court acted within its discretion by enjoining appellant from continuing this series of vexatious lawsuits"), review denied (Minn.
Upon a proper showing, we would not hesitate to advance those legislative purposes, by an award of Transclean's investigatory and litigation expenses. See, e.g.,Love v. Amsler, 441 N.W.2d 555, 560 (Minn.App. 1989), pet. for rev, denied (Minn., August 15, 1989) (expert witness fees and transcript costs are authorized as "costs of investigation" under Section 8.31, Subdivision 3a). Here, however, there are several factors which strongly weigh against an award of fees.
Bucko v. First Minnesota Savings Bank, F.S.B., 452 N.W.2d 244, 252 (Minn.Ct.App. 1990) ("Because . . . respondents established injury under the statute, they are entitled to costs, including attorney fees, under Minn.Stat. § 181.75, subd. 4."); see Liess v. Lindemyer, 354 N.W.2d 556, 557 (Minn.Ct.App. 1984), Freeman v. Q Petroleum Corporation, 417 N.W.2d 617, 618 (Minn. 1988); Love v. Amsler, 441 N.W.2d 555, 560 (Minn.Ct.App. 1989). The court concludes, therefore, that an award of attorneys' fees under Minn.Stat. § 181.935(a) is appropriate.
Courts in other jurisdictions have also concluded that their consumer protection statutes apply to the landlord-tenant relationship. See, e.g., Carter v. Mueller, 457 N.E.2d 1335, 1342 (Ill. Ct. App. 1983); Love v. Amsler, 441 N.W.2d 555, 559 (Minn. Ct. App. 1989) and cases cited at 558 n.1; 49 Prospect Street, 547 A.2d at 1141-42; Commonwealth v. Monumental Properties, Inc., 329 A.2d 812, 820 (Pa. 1974). But see Heritage Hills, Ltd. v. Deacon, 551 N.E.2d 125, 127-28 (Ohio 1990) (consumer sales practices law does not apply to leases of real property because this definition of "consumer transaction" was specifically rejected by the legislature).
When an appellant fails to file a motion for amended findings, appellant's argument that the district court made inadequate findings is forfeited. See Anderson v. Peterson's N. Branch Mill, Inc., 503 N.W.2d 517, 518-19 (Minn.App. 1993) (declining to review adequacy of findings and conclusions of law because appellant did not move for amended findings); Pac. Mut. Door Co. v. James, 465 N.W.2d 696, 701 (Minn.App. 1991) (same); Love v. Amsler, 441 N.W.2d 555, 560 (Minn.App. 1989) (same), rev. denied (Minn. Aug. 15, 1989). Here, McKinnon's failure to file a motion for amended findings likely forfeited the issue on appeal. See Pac. Mut. Door Co., 465 and N.W.2d at 701.