Based on the PSAC, however, Plaintiff's allegations give rise to a reasonable inference that ARS deliberately proceeded to act in conscious or intentional disregard of the high degree of probability that it was interfering with Plaintiff's property rights by the repossession of her vehicle. See In re Mercer, 48 B.R. 562 (Bankr. D. Minn. 1985) (recovering punitive damages where employees of creditor kicked in debtor's back door, scaring the debtor's children effectuating a repossession of debtor's leased stereo); see also Sieren v. Am. Family Fin. Servs. of Wisc., Inc., 356 N.W.2d 408, 410-12 (Minn. Ct. App. 1985) (reinstating jury's punitive damage award for conversion and wrongful repossession of a vehicle). Simply put, because of the facts alleged, the Court cannot conclude that Plaintiff's claim for punitive damages would be futile.
Even if a memorandum is not made part of an order, an appellate court may refer to the memorandum "for the purpose of throwing light upon or explaining a decision." Merriman, 267 N.W.2d at 716 n.5; see also Sieren v. American Family Fin. Srvcs., Inc., 356 N.W.2d 408, 410-11 (Minn.App. 1984), rev. denied (Minn. Feb. 6, 1985); cf. Minn. R. Civ. P. 52.01 & 1985 advisory comm. note (permitting findings of fact and conclusions of law "in an accompanying memorandum"). In this case, the district court's order concludes with the following statement: "The attached memorandum is incorporated herein by reference."
The record of this protracted dispute is extensive, and it supports the district court's rationale, as outlined in its memorandum, for modifying visitation. See Van Zee v. Van Zee, 257 N.W.2d 389, 389-90 (Minn. 1977) (considering district court's memorandum in assessing whether district court abused its discretion in finding best interests served by granting visitation rights); Sieren v. American Family Fin. Servs. of Wisc., Inc., 356 N.W.2d 408, 410 (Minn.App. 1984) (looking to district court's memorandum for clarification of order). Based on our thorough review of the record, we are satisfied that the district court properly determined the modification would serve the best interests of the child.
See Buttz v. Bergeson, 392 N.W.2d 917, 920 (Minn.Ct.App. 1986); Nelson v. Henning, 354 N.W.2d 35, 42 (Minn.Ct.App. 1984). In Sieren v. American Family Financial Services, 356 N.W.2d 408 (Minn.Ct.App. 1984), this court reversed a remittitur of punitive damages because the trial court's memorandum revealed its decision was based on an erroneous view of the law. We stated:
The general rule is that a memorandum of a trial judge is no part of the order or findings to which it is attached, unless expressly made a part thereof; and, whether attached or not, it may be referred to only for clarification where the trial court's order or finding is not explicit in itself and is ambiguous.Sieren v. American Family Financial Services, 356 N.W.2d 408, 411 (Minn.Ct.App. 1984), pet. for rev. denied, (Minn. February 6, 1985) (quoting McMillen v. Meyer, 246 Minn. 132, 135-36, 74 N.W.2d 393, 395 (1965)).
Cobb at 237, 238. This court has held that in a wrongful repossession case, punitive damages are to be submitted to a jury for determination. Sieren v. American Family Financial Services, 356 N.W.2d 408, 411 (Minn.Ct.App. 1984). Here the trial court substituted its judgment for that of the jury.