Bjorklund v. Bjorklund Trucking, Inc., 753 N.W.2d 312 (2008)

Citation: Bjorklund v. Bjorklund Trucking, Inc., 753 N.W.2d 312 (2008)
Parent Document: Bjorklund v. Bjorklund Trucking, Inc., 753 N.W.2d 312 (2008)
Jurisdiction: Minnesota (state)
Effective Date: 2008-07-22
Original Source: https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/1728695/bjorklund-v-bjorklund-trucking-inc/ ↗

Full Text

1,050 chars

BTI moved for a new trial, arguing that the district court’s failure to instruct the jury on its affirmative defenses and failure to mention the affirmative defenses in the special-verdict form required a new trial. BTI also moved to continue to stay the writ of execution. The district court denied BTI’s motion for a new trial but granted the motion to stay further proceedings and execution of the writ. In a memorandum supporting the order, the district court stated that “[b]ecause of the summary nature of an [eviction] action the jury in this action was simply being asked to determine whether there was a lease, whether it had been breached and whether [BTI] was still in possession.” The district court noted that BTI’s affirmative defense of possession by purchase “was fully developed during the trial and fully argued to the jury, and did not need further instruction.” The district court implied that it was without authority to supplement the special-verdict form contained in Minn. Stat. § 504B.355 (2006). This appeal followed. ISSUES

Other Sections in This Document (54)

Full Text