Opinion
A24-0086
08-16-2024
In the Matter of: Renee Vasko, Appellant, v. Todd Hillmann, Respondent.
McLeod County District Court File No. 43-FA-23-1574
Considered and decided by Johnson, Presiding Judge; Bratvold, Judge; and John P. Smith, Judge.[*]
ORDER OPINION
Matthew E. Johnson, Judge.
BASED ON THE FILE, RECORD, AND PROCEEDINGS, AND BECAUSE:
1. Renee Vasko petitioned the district court for an order for protection (OFP) against Todd Hillmann. Three weeks later, the district court filed an order for dismissal based on a stipulation of the parties. One month after that, Vasko moved to amend the order for dismissal. The district court denied her motion. We affirm.
2. Vasko petitioned the district court for an OFP in October 2023. The district court issued an emergency ex parte OFP and scheduled a hearing for November 6, 2023. At the November 6, 2023 hearing, Hillmann requested an evidentiary hearing, and the district court determined that an evidentiary hearing was necessary "unless the parties reach resolution." The district court scheduled an evidentiary hearing for November 15, 2023, and informed the parties that the hearing could be canceled "if full agreement is reached and [a] signed stipulation is filed."
3. Between the November 6, 2023 hearing and the November 15, 2023 hearing date, Hillmann's attorney corresponded with Vasko about proposed settlement agreements to resolve this case and other then-pending cases. On November 13, 2023, Hillmann's attorney sent Vasko an e-mail message with an attached proposed stipulation for dismissal, which included three paragraphs that were intended to be inserted into a court order. On the same date, Vasko sent Hillmann's attorney a responsive e-mail message, stating, "Ok, I have received it and approve it and give permission to you to e-sign it." On November 14, 2023, Hillmann's attorney filed the stipulation for dismissal with the district court. Hillmann's attorney also filed Vasko's e-mail message in which she expressed her approval of the stipulation and gave permission for Hillmann's attorney to affix her e-signature to it. On November 15, 2023, the district court filed an order for dismissal, which included the three provisions in the parties' stipulation for dismissal, which are as follows:
1. [Vasko] shall have 90 days to remove her personal belongings from Mr. Hillmann's residence.
2. [Vasko] may have a third party or parties with her to help with removing her personal belongings.
3. [Hillmann] agrees that he nor any other person will touch, take, steal, use, break, destroy, or dispose of [Vasko's] personal belongings.
The district court administrator entered judgment on the same day.
4. On December 27, 2023, Vasko filed a motion to amend the order for dismissal by deleting paragraphs 1 and 2 on the ground that she had revoked her agreement to the stipulation for dismissal, and she attached to her motion copies of e-mail messages that she apparently had sent to Hillmann's attorney. Hillmann responded to the motion, on a self-represented basis, by requesting that the district court deny the motion. In the alternative, Hillmann stated that he had no objection to the deletion of paragraph 2 and that paragraph 1 could be modified to allow Vasko a reasonable time in which to remove her possessions from his home so long as he could remove and store any of her possessions that she did not remove within 90 days. Hillmann stated further that he and Vasko had been adhering to the November 15, 2023 dismissal order and that Vasko had been "granted access to the property numerous times" and had "removed some items."
5. On January 11, 2024, the district court conducted a hearing on Vasko's motion to amend the order for dismissal.
6. On January 16, 2024, Vasko filed a handwritten notice of appeal from the November 15, 2023 order for dismissal and the judgment entered on that date. In her statement of the case, Vasko stated that her December 27, 2023 motion tolled the time in which to appeal from the November 15, 2023 order for dismissal.
7. On January 29, 2024, the district court filed an order denying Vasko's motion to amend the dismissal order. The district court recited each party's position and factual assertions. The district court also stated, "When questioned by the Court, [Vasko] refused to provide the Court with a date that she deemed reasonable by which she could have her personal property removed." The district court stated that Vasko's assertion that she had not agreed to paragraphs 1 and 2 was not credible. The district court also stated that Hillmann did not engage in fraud or misrepresentation and that Vasko did not establish that she is entitled to any other relief.
8. In Vasko's principal appellate brief, which she filed on a self-represented basis, she argues that the district court erred in its January 29, 2024 order by denying her motion to amend the November 15, 2023 order for dismissal. "An order denying a motion to set aside a stipulation for dismissal with prejudice is an appealable order." Western Lake Superior Sanitary Dist. v. Interpace Corp., 454 N.W.2d 449, 451 (Minn.App. 1990). But Vasko has not filed a notice of appeal from the district court's January 29, 2024 order. An appellate court may not review an appealable order that was filed by a district court after the appellant filed the notice of appeal. See Schaust v. Town Bd. of Hollywood Twp., Carver Cnty., 204 N.W.2d 646, 648 (Minn. 1973).
9. As stated above, Vasko's notice of appeal is based on the district court's November 15, 2023 order and judgment. Vasko does not argue in her appellate briefs that the district court erred by filing the November 15, 2023 order for dismissal. Without any such argument, we are unable to conduct the customary type of appellate review. See State v. Sontoya, 788 N.W.2d 868, 876 (Minn. 2010); State v. Bartylla, 755 N.W.2d 8, 22-23 (Minn. 2008). We may, however, consider whether reversible error "is obvious on mere inspection." State v. Taylor, 869 N.W.2d 1, 22 (Minn. 2015) (quoting Louden v. Louden, 22 N.W.2d 164, 166 (Minn. 1946)). We have inspected the district court record and see no obvious error. The district court appropriately signed and filed the November 15, 2023 order for dismissal after receiving a stipulation for dismissal that was e-signed by both parties as well as a letter from Hillmann's attorney attaching an e-mail message in which Vasko expressed her approval of the stipulation and gave permission for Hillmann's attorney to affix her e-signature to it.
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED:
1. The district court's November 15, 2023 order for dismissal 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.
[*] Retired judge of the Minnesota Court of Appeals, serving by appointment pursuant to Minn. Const. art. VI, § 10.