In re the Marriage of:

This opinion will be unpublished and
may not be cited except as provided by
Minn. Stat. § 480A.08, subd. 3 (2018).

STATE OF MINNESOTA
IN COURT OF APPEALS
A19-1645

In re the Marriage of:

Adenach Feyyissa Kenea,
Respondent,

and

Amsalu Gobena Negera,
Appellant,

vs.

Steven E. Antolak, et al.,
Respondents.

Filed May 11, 2020
Affirmed
Smith, Tracy M., Judge

Hennepin County District Court
File No. 27-FA-18-1632

Bethany Ann Assell, Central Minnesota Le gal Services, Minneapolis, Minnesota (for
respondent Adenach Feyyissa Kenea)

Amsalu G. Negera, Fridley, Minnesota (pro se appellant)

Steven E. Antolak, Antolak & Ongeri, Minn eapolis, Minnesota (atto rney pro se and for
respondent Antolak & Ongeri)

Considered and decided by Smith, Tracy M., Presiding Judge; Connolly, Judge; and
Jesson, Judge.

2
U N P U B L I S H E D O P I N I O N
SMITH, TRACY M., Judge
Appellant Amsalu Gobena Ne gera challenges a district court’s order determining
that his attorney, respondent Steven E. Antolak, was entitled to a judgment of $12,043.75
and an attorney’s lien on Negera’s real property. We affirm.
FACTS
Antolak represented Negera regarding th e dissolution of Negera’s marriage.
Negera’s wife filed a petition initiating th e matter. The dispute proceeded towards a
scheduled trial, but, on the day of the trial, th e parties appeared befo re the district court
with an agreement resolving a ll issues. The district court entered a judgment and decree
dissolving the marriage consistent with the parties’ agreement.1
Antolak thereafter moved the district court to establish a lien for attorney fees and
to determine the amount of fees due. The di strict court held a he aring on the matter and
concluded that Negera owed Antolak $12,0 43.75, based on Antolak’s reasonable hourly
rate, the hours worked, and the outstanding balance. The district court then determined that
Antolak was entitled to the fees and an attorney’s lien under Minn. Stat. § 481.13 (2018).
Negera appeals.
D E C I S I O N
Under Minn. Stat. § 481.13, “once a procee ding is commenced, an attorney has a
lien for compensation on any money involved.” Ashford v. Interstat e Trucking Corp. of

1 Negera appealed, but this court dismissed the appeal. Negera has filed another appeal in
the same case, but that appeal has been stayed pending mediation.

3
Am., 524 N.W.2d 500, 502 (Minn. App. 1994). “An attorney’s lien ‘prevent[s] a client from
benefiting from an attorney’s services without paying for those services.’” City of Oronoco
v. Fitzpatrick Real Estate, LLC , 883 N.W.2d 592, 595 (Minn. 2016) (quoting Dorsey &
Whitney LLP v. Grossman, 749 N.W.2d 409, 420 (Minn. App. 2008)). A district court may
establish an attorney’s lien and determ ine the amount of the lien summarily upon
application of an interested party. Minn. Stat. § 481.13, subd. 1(c).
Appellate courts review the method used to calculate the amount of an attorney’s
lien de novo. Ashford, 524 N.W.2d at 502. We review the district court’s findings of fact,
such as the reasonable value of the attorney fees in question, for clear error. Id.; Thomas A.
Foster & Assocs., Ltd. v. Paulson, 699 N.W.2d 1, 4 (Minn. App. 2005).
Negera makes several conclusory arguments with limited legal and factual support.
First, Negera makes several factual claims about Antolak’s representation, but he does not
support his claims with cites to anything in the record. Review of Negera’s claims is
particularly difficult because he elected not to provide us with a transcript on appeal.
Without a transcript, the scope of an appellate court’s review is “limited to issues that can
be determined by reference to the available record.” Sela Invs. Ltd. v. H.E. , 909 N.W.2d
344, 349 (Minn. App. 2018). On the available record, there is no way to conclude that there
was reversible error based on Negera’s factual allegations about Antolak’s representation.
Next, Negera asserts that the district c ourt established the attorney’s lien “for
unbelievable and mispresented billing” and that there was no evidence of an hourly rate
payment agreement. The evidence that is available in the record suggests that the billing
was “believable.” The record includes a log of Antolak’s billed h ours spent working on

4
Negera’s case, an unsigned retainer letter that discusses an hourly rate and payment plan,
and Antolak’s ledger, which includes Antolak’ s fees and the payments made by Negera.
As for the hourly rate, the district court found that Negera agreed to pay Antolak’s standard
hourly rate. With no transcript and nothing in the record beyond Negera’s assertion that he
did not so agree, there is nothing to support the conclusion that the district court clearly
erred.
Negera also suggests that the hourly rate of $315 was unreasonable. The district
court found that Antolak’s hourly rate was r easonable. Again, there is no transcript, and
Negera points to nothing in the record that shows that the district court’s finding was clearly
erroneous.
Finally, Negera claims that the district court was enforcing an invalid oral
agreement, asserting that the statute of frauds requires any agreement for more than $500
to be in writing and that “[a] written fee agreement was not entered into evidence.” Negera
appears to be referencing the Uniform Commercial Code Statute of Frauds: “[A] contract
for the sale of goods for the price of $500 or more is not enforceable by way of action or
defense unless there is some writing.” Minn. St at. § 336.2-201(1) (2018). But this statute
applies to the “sale of goods,” not the sale of services such as legal representation. Negera
does not cite any authority for why the statute of frauds would apply here.
Affirmed.