Yao Yamtse, Respondent,

This opinion is nonprecedential except as provided by
Minn. R. Civ. App. P. 136.01, subd. 1(c).

STATE OF MINNESOTA
IN COURT OF APPEALS
A20-1222

Yao Yamtse,
Respondent,

vs.

Farm Bureau Property & Casualty Insurance Company,
Appellant.

Filed April 26, 2021
Affirmed; motions denied
Connolly, Judge

Ramsey County District Court
File No. 62-CV-20-445

Bradley A. Kirscher, Kirscher Law Firm, PA, Roseville, Minnesota (for respondent)

Richard S. Stempel, Luke G. Peters, Stempel & Associates, PLC, Excelsior, Minnesota
(for appellant)

Considered and decided by Connolly, Presiding Judge; Segal, Chief Judge; and
Smith, Tracy M., Judge.
NONPRECEDENTIAL OPINION
CONNOLLY, Judge
Appellant challenges the district court’s award of costs and disbursements to
respondent, arguing that the district court abused its discretion because (1) the underlying
motion to confirm the no -fault arbitration award was premature, unnecessary, and moot;

2
and (2) the award under Minn. Stat. § 549.02 (2020) is contrary to Minn. Stat. § 572B.25
(2020). We affirm. Respondent’s motions to strike portions of appellant’s brief and for
sanctions are denied.
FACTS
In December 2019, respondent Yao Yamtse and appellant Farm Bureau Property &
Casualty Insurance Company participated in a mandatory binding arbitration to r esolve
their dispute over no -fault insurance benefits, pursuant to Minn . Stat. § 65B.525, subd. 1
(2018). The arbitrator awarded respondent $10, 347.31. Within 30 days, respondent sent
appellant an e mail asking when the payment would be made . A ppellant d id not
immediately reply to the e mail. As a result, respondent filed a motion to confirm the
arbitration award in district court.
In February 2020, following a hearing, the district court confirmed the arbitration
award and ordered judgment against the appellant for the unpaid part of the amount,
$144.59, “plus costs and disbursements to be added to the judgment upon application by
the [respondent].”1 Subsequently, respondent filed a notice and application for taxation of
costs and disbursements: statutory costs of $205.50, court filing fees of $305, motion fees
of $80; costs of service of $17.40; and a parking fee of $4.65 for the confirmation hearing.
Over appellant’s objection, the district court admin istrator determined that all of
respondent’s claimed costs, with the exception of the parking fee, were reasonable, and
allowed respondent total costs and disbursements of $607.90.

1 Appellant had paid part of the amount prior to the hearing.

3
In March 2020, appellant challenged the district court administrator’s determination
that respondent’s costs and disbursements were reasonable. In June 2020, the district court
issued an order denying the appeal of costs and d isbursements, stating that “[j] udgment
shall be entered against [appellant] and in favor of [respondent] for reasonable costs and
disbursements in the amount of $607.90.”
In September 2020, an appeal was filed with this court . Because the appeal was
untimely in part, this court issued an order dismissing portions of the appeal and limiting
its scope to a review of the district court’s June 2020 order denying appellant’s challenge
to the court administrator’s award of costs and disbursements and the judgment entered
upon that order. Because appellant’s brief contains arguments referring to actions outside
the scope of this appeal, respondent filed a motion to strike and also a motion for sanctions.
DECISION
“We generally review a district court’s award of costs and disbursements for an
abuse of discretion. Whether the district court erred in its interpretation of the statute
authorizing the award of costs and disbursements to [respondent], however, is a legal
question that we review de novo.” Dukowitz v. Hannon Sec. Servs., 841 N.W.2d 147, 155
(Minn. 2014) (citation omitted).
“A district court abuses its discretion by making findings o f fact that are
unsupported by the evidence, misapplying the law, or rendering a decision that is against
logic and the facts on record.” Knapp v. Knapp, 883 N.W.2d 833, 835 (Minn. App. 2016)
(quotation omitted).

4
Here, appellant argues that the district court abused its discretion by awarding
respondent costs and disburs ements incurred in the district -court proceeding held to
confirm the arbitration award. Appellant maintains that the underlying motion to confirm
the award was unnecessary, premature, and moot because the remaining payments were
made shortly after the hearing. Appellant does not provide any legal basis for this
argument.
Appellant also argues that, by confirming the award, the district court is making
appellant “pay for the costs of a no -fault claimant’s superfluous motion ” and that “it can
be inferred that the District Court held that no -fault insurer s must pay an additional
amount. . . for each and every no-fault claimant who chooses to file a motion to confirm,
no matter how unnecessary the motion may be.” Appellant make s further conclusory
statements based on the district court’s decision to confirm the costs and disbursements .
See, e.g., “The District Court’s holdings run contrary to [the no-fault arbitration system’s]
purpose by incentivizing claimants to seek unnecessary confirmation of an award.”
Even if this court agreed with appellant’s view that respondent did not need to bring
a motion to confirm the award, respondent did not violate the law by doing so. Minnesota
law provides that “[a]fter a party to an arbitration proceeding receives notice of an award,
the party may file a motion with the court for an order confirming the award.” Minn. Stat.
§ 572B.22 (2020 ). And any decision made thereafter regarding costs and disbursements
was well within the district court’s discretion. See Dukowitz, 841 N.W.2d at 155. The
disbursements awarded were the fees paid and the costs of litigation, all of which were
necessary to obtain confirmation of the arbitration award. Appellant does not identify any

5
basis for the argument that either the award or its confirmation was contrary to “logic” or
the “facts on the record.” See Knapp, 883 N.W.2d at 835. As such, the district court did
not abuse its discretion by confirming the award of costs and disbursements.
Appellant makes a separate argument that the “award of statutory costs is contrary
to [Minn. Stat.] § 572B and [is] an abuse of discretion.” The same argument was raised in
the appeal of the court administrator’s determination of ta xable costs and disbursements.
The district court analyzed this claim in its order denying the appeal of costs and
disbursements. Appellant briefly makes this chal lenge in the present appeal, without
providing any support but reiterating the district court ’s statement and adding, “For the
reasons discussed above, the District Court’s award of costs was an unreasonable abuse of
discretion and should be reversed, even as to the statutory costs.”
The district court correctly found that there is no confli ct between Minn. Stat.
§ 572B.25 and Minn. Stat. § 549.02. “The interpretation of a statute is a question of law
that we review de novo.” Cocchiarella v. Driggs, 884 N.W.2d 621, 624 (Minn. 2016); see
also Swenson v. Nickaboine, 793 N.W.2d 738, 741 (Minn. 2011). Where the language of
two statutes appears to be in conflict, Minnesota’s rules of statutory construction require
the court to harmonize both of the apparently conflicting provisions where possible, “so
that effect may be given to both.” Minn. Stat. §§ 645.26, 645.17 (2020).
The district court correctly stated that “it is entirely possible to give full effect and
allow costs to [respondent] under both statu tes without one inhibit ing the purpose of the
other.” In addition to the costs allowed under Minn. Stat. § 572B.25, Minn. Stat. § 549.02
provides a basis for allowing costs “[i]n actions commenced in the district court.”

6
Respondent initiated the action by filing and serving a summons and complaint, in addition
to the motion to confirm. The district court held a hearing on the motion and ruled in favor
of respondent. Accordingly, respo ndent was entitled to reasonable statutory costs unde r
Minn. Stat. § 549.02.
While the language of Minn. Stat. § 549.02 is mandatory (requiring an award), and
Minn. Stat. § 572B .25 is permissive ( giving the district court discretion to award), both
statutes limit the award to “reasonable” costs and disbursements. The dist rict court found
the amounts to be reasonable, and the district court’s disallowance of reimbursement for a
parking fee is evidence of the district court exercising its sound discretion.
Therefore, appellant’s argument that the district court abused its d iscretion by
making an award under Minn. Stat. § 549.02 contrary to Minn. Stat. § 572B.25 fails.
Motions to Strike and for Sanctions
Respondent challenges portions of appellant’s brief as unsupported by the record
and beyond the scope of this appeal, having been previously addressed in this court’s
October 12, 2020, order. Respondent’s motion is denied as moot because the court has not
relied on the contested statements in appellant’s brief for any of the analysis on a ppeal.
Drewitz v. Motorwerks, Inc ., 728 N.W.2d 231, 233 n.2 (Minn. 2007) (denying motion to
strike as moot when court did not rely on challenged materials).
Respondent also filed a motion seeking sanctions under Minn. Stat. § 549.211
(2020) on the grounds that the appeal was made for an “improper purpose” and part of the
appeal was untimely. Respondent is correct that appellant appealed a judgment which was
untimely as part of its timely appeal. But appellant voluntarily dismissed the challenged

7
part of the appeal after we filed an order questioning the timeliness of that aspect of the
appeal. The voluntary dismissal preceded briefing in this appeal. In view of the early,
voluntary dismissal, we are not persuaded that the appeal was filed in bad faith or that
sanctions are appropriate.
Affirmed; motions denied.