Mccallum v. Western Natl. Mutual Ins. Co.

7 Citing cases

  1. Nygard v. Walsh

    No. A18-1315 (Minn. Ct. App. Apr. 29, 2019)

    The district court's conclusion that it had jurisdiction over appellant's motion to vacate or modify a satisfied eight-year-old judgment was based on McCallum v. W. Nat'l Mut. Ins. Co., 597 N.W.2d 307 (Minn. App. 1999), but McCallum is factually distinguishable and concerned a different issue. In McCallum, judgment was entered on December 29, 1998; a writ of execution that froze the judgment debtor's bank accounts so it could not transact business was served on or about January 19, 1999; the judgment was satisfied on February 1, 1999; and the appeal from the judgment was filed on February 26, 1999.

  2. Lyon Financial Services v. Waddill

    607 N.W.2d 453 (Minn. Ct. App. 2000)   Cited 4 times

    As this court has recognized, however, an involuntarily satisfied judgment does not fit within the general civil-action rule because it does not involve a waiver of rights that results in mootness. Reardon Office Equip. v. Nelson, 409 N.W.2d 222, 224 (Minn.App. 1987); cf. McCallum v. Western Nat'l Mut. Ins. Co., 597 N.W.2d 307, 309 (Minn.App. 1999) (right to appeal not waived by involuntarily satisfied judgment). Because the judgment against Waddill was involuntarily satisfied, her motion to vacate was not moot and should not have, been dismissed.

  3. Lyon v. Ford Motor Company

    2000 N.D. 12 (N.D. 2000)   Cited 17 times
    Concluding that Ford had voluntarily paid the judgment when Ford paid before any execution or legal proceedings to collect the judgment

    The rule that a judgment debtor waives the right to appeal is intended to prevent a party who voluntarily pays a judgment from later changing his mind and then seeking the court's aid in recovering payment. See McCallum v. Western Nat'l Mut. Ins. Co., 597 N.W.2d 307, 309 (Minn.App. 1999); Riner v. Briargrove Park Property Owners, Inc., 858 S.W.2d 370 (Tex. 1993). The Supreme Court of Texas reasoned in Highland Church of Christ v. Powell, 640 S.W.2d 235, 236 (Tex. 1982), "[a] party should not be allowed to mislead his opponent into believing that the controversy is over and then contest the payment and seek recovery."

  4. Orcutt v. Crews

    No. A22-0548 (Minn. Ct. App. Dec. 5, 2022)   Cited 1 times

    Discharging or satisfying a judgment ends an action against a judgment debtor and effectively eliminates any further opportunity to recover from an excess secondary insurer. See Drake, 514 N.W.2d at 788 (explaining that dismissing the tortfeasor causes the lawsuit to "fail[]"); see also McCallum v. W. Nat. Mut. Ins. Co., 597 N.W.2d 307, 308 (Minn.App. 1999) (stating that a judgment that is "satisfied of record" generally "ceases to have any existence" (quotation omitted)).

  5. McGrath v. MICO, Inc.

    A11-1087 (Minn. Ct. App. Dec. 10, 2012)   Cited 2 times
    Holding that the district court's finding that a sale of shares "could have resulted in significant profitability" was not clearly erroneous and supported the punitive-damages award

    Accordingly, we conclude that MICO's satisfactions of the judgments were involuntary and thus that it has not waived the right to appeal. See McCallum v. Western Nat'l Mut. Ins. Co., 597 N.W.2d 307, 309 (Minn. App. 1999) (explaining that the purpose of the waiver rule is to "prevent a party who voluntarily pays a judgment from later changing his mind and seeking the court's aid in recovering payment" but that an involuntary payment does not result in waiver). We also agree that, to the extent that the district court imposed joint and several liability against Brent and Larry for the attorney-fees award, MICO's satisfaction of that judgment would not moot Brent and Larry's challenge to that award because MICO could seek contribution or indemnification from them.

  6. Hanson v. Woolston

    701 N.W.2d 257 (Minn. Ct. App. 2005)   Cited 30 times
    Concluding that "the bona-fide-purchaser doctrine should not apply to create a title to land when there is a total absence of title in the vendor"

    The rule that these cases recognize is intended to prevent a party who voluntarily pays a judgment or accepts the benefit of a judgment from changing his mind and seeking the court's aid in recovering payment. McCallum v. Western Nat'l Mut. Ins. Co., 597 N.W.2d 307, 309 (Minn.App. 1999). Woolston's acquisition of the judgment by assignment was not a payment and satisfaction by a party to the Weber action.

  7. PEOPLE UNLIMITED CONSULTING v. BA INDUSTRIES

    582 S.E.2d 82 (N.C. Ct. App. 2003)   Cited 1 times

    A party's satisfaction of a judgment has been held to be involuntary where the party was in financial difficulty and unable to file a supersedeas bond, Del Rio Land v. Haumont, 110 Ariz. 7, 514 P.2d 1003 (1973), where payment was coerced through threat of legal process, Carson v. Painewebber, Inc., 62 P.3d 996 (Colo.Ct.App. 2002), where payment was rendered under threat of execution or levy where no stay had been issued, Consortion Trading Int'l v. Lowrance, 682 So.2d 221 (Fla.App. 1996), and at any time following issuance of a writ of execution, notwithstanding the appellant's failure to obtain a stay or post a bond. McCallum v. Western Nat'l Mut. Ins. Co., 597 N.W.2d 307 (Minn.App. 1999). In the present case, the record shows that the trial court entered judgment on 11 December 2001 requiring that PUC pay $66,000 plus interest in the amount of 8% until the judgment was paid in full.