Deborah Saxhaug, et al., Respondents,

This opinion is nonprecedential except as provided by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
A24-0159

Deborah Saxhaug, et al.,
Respondents,

vs.

Bradford Saxhaug,
Appellant,

Queen City Federal Savings Bank,
Defendant .

Filed September 23, 2024
Affirmed
Klaphake, Judge *

St. Louis County District Court
File No. 69VI-CV-21-523

Kelly M. Klun, Klun Law Firm, P.A., Ely, Minnesota (for respondents)

Bryan M. Lindsay, Trenti Law Firm, Virginia, Minnesota (for appellant)

Considered and decided by Smith, Tracy M., Presiding Judge; Harris , Judge; and
Klaphake, Judge.

* Retired judge of the Minnesota Court of Appeals, serving by appointment pursuant to
Minn. Const. art. VI, § 10.
2
NONPRECEDENTIAL OPINION
KLAPHAKE , Judge
Respondents-siblings sued appellant, their brother, arguing that he breached a
contract by failing to transfer to them an interest in land. A jury determined that appellant
breached the contract. On appeal, a ppellant argues that the district court erred by
(1) denying his motion for summary judgment, (2) fashioning an equitable remedy for one
of his siblings, and (3) not considering his counterclaims. We affirm.
DECISION
I.
In district court, a ppellant Bradford Saxhaug moved for summary judgment . He
argued that a contract was otherwise invalid because it lacked consideration and because it
was rescinded . The district court denied the motion, determining that genuine issues of
material fact remained regarding the validity of the contract. On appeal, appellant argues
that the district court erred in denying his summary-judgment motion because the contract
“failed” as a matter of law. Respondents Deborah Saxhaug, Sherry Coughlin, Mark
Saxhaug, and Eric Saxhaug argue that appellant waived any challenge to the jury’s findings
by failing to move for a directed verdict or judgment as a matter of law (JMOL). We agree
that appellant’s argument is beyond the scope of review.
In Bahr v. Boise Cascade Corp., there was a workplace dispute between an appellant
and the respondents. 766 N.W.2d 910, 913 (Minn. 2009). The appellant sued for
defamation. Id. The district court denied the respondent s’ motion for summary judgment,
and the matter proceeded to trial. Id. The jury found in favor of the appellant. Id. On
3
appeal, the respondent s argued that the district court erred in denying their motion for
summary judgment. Id. at 917. In addressing the scope of review, the supreme court
determined that the issue presented was “ whether the denial of a motion for summary
judgment is reviewable on appeal after judgment is entered on a jury verdict.” Id. The
supreme court held that “[t]he district court ’s denial of a motion for summary judgment is
not within the scope of review on appeal from a judgment entered after a j ury verdict.” Id.
at 912. The supreme court noted that “t he district court ’s conclusion at the summary
judgment stage that there was a genuine dispute of fact becomes moot once the jury reaches
a verdict on that issue.” Id. at 918.
The Bahr holding applies in this case. In his summary-judgment motion, appellant
argued that the contract was not valid for lack of consideration and because it had been
rescinded. The district court determined that genuine questions of material fact remained
on those issues. The matter proceeded to a jury trial. The jury found that there was a
binding contract and that it had not been rescinded. Because the jury reached a verdict on
those issues, the district court’s summary- judgment ruling has effectively bee n rendered
moot, and appellant’s challenges to the district court’s summary-judgment ruling are “not
properly within the scope of review” in this appeal. See id. at 919.
An appellant is not prohibited from challenging a summary- judgment ruling in an
appeal from a final judgment because “on appeal from a judgment [an appellate court] may
review any order involving the merits or affecting the judgment.” Minn. R. Civ. App. P.
103.04. However, a denial of a motion for summary judgment in a case like this cannot be
seen as affecting the judgment because the jury, relying on the evidence at trial, concluded
4
that the evidence was sufficient for contract formation and sufficient to show that the
contract had not been rescinded, and therefore the district court’s determination on those
issues at the summary -judgment stage has effectively been superseded and rendered
“moot.” See Bahr, 766 N.W.2d at 918. That is not to say that appellant was without
recourse. Appellant could have moved for JMOL. See id. at 918-22 (declining to consider
the issue of actual malice on appeal from a summary-judgment ruling but considering the
issue on appeal from a JMOL ruling); see also Minn. R. Civ. P. 50.01 (stating that “[i]f
during a trial by jury a party has been fully heard on an issue and there is no legally
sufficient evidentiary basis for a reasonable jury to find for that party on that issue, the
court may decide the issue”). However, he failed to do so. Therefore, appellant effectively
forfeited a challenge to the jury’s determinations that there was sufficient consideration for
contract formation and that the contract had not been rescinded.
II.
The contract granted appellant and his brother the option to purchase land upon the
death of their parents, but neither of them exercised that option. In granting relief after the
trial, the district court gave appellant and his brother additional time to exercise the option.
Appellant argues that the district court failed to make sufficient findings to support the
equitable remedy for his brother.
District courts have the power to grant equitable relief based on the facts and
circumstances of a particular case. St. Jude Med., Inc., v. Carte r, 913 N.W.2d 678, 683
(Minn. 2018); DeLa Rosa v. DeLa Rosa, 309 N.W.2d 755, 758 (Minn. 1981). “We review
the district court ’s ultimate decision to grant equitable relief for [an] abuse of discretion.”
5
Herlache v. Rucks , 990 N.W.2d 443, 449- 50 (Minn. 2023). The “district court abuses its
discretion when its decision is based on an erroneous view of the law or is against logic
and the facts in the record.” Thompson v. Schrimsher, 906 N.W.2d 495, 500 (Minn. 2018)
(quotation omitted) .
In granting appellant and his brother additional time to exercise the option to
purchase the land, the district court reasoned that it would be inequitable not to give them
that opportunity because there was uncertainty surrounding the validity of the contract
containing the option. The record supports the district court’s determination. After the
death of the parties’ parents, neither appellant nor his brother exercised the option to
purchase the land. And, this lawsuit, where the validity of the contract is being challenged,
demonstrates t hat there was uncertainty concerning the contract and the option.
Appellant argues that “[i]mplicit” in the brother’s role as a plaintiff in the litigation
is the understanding that he “believed” the contract was always in effect and valid, and
therefore he should face the consequences of not exercising the option. But appellant’s
argument cuts both ways. He maintained throughout the litigation that the contract was
not valid, and yet he now seeks to benefit from the additional time to exercise the option.
Again, the record supports the district court’s determination that there was uncertainty
concerning the validity of the contract and associated option. “A district court has broad
discretion when fashioning an equitable remedy.” State ex rel. Swan Lake Area Wildlife
Ass’n v. Nicollet Cnty. Bd. of Cnty. Comm ’rs, 799 N.W.2d 619, 625 (Minn. App. 2011).
The district court did not abuse its broad discretion.

6
III.
After respondents sued a ppellant, he filed an answer and raised two counterclaims,
one for contribution and one for unjust enrichment. The parties agreed to submit to the
jury only questions concerning the validity of the contract and whether it was breached,
and the equitable claims and defenses were reserved for a decision by the district court.
Contribution and unjust enrichment are equitable claims. Reserve Ins. Co. v. Village of Big
Lake, 230 N.W.2d 47, 47 (Minn. 1975); Herlache, 990 N.W.2d at 450. The district court
later filed an o rder resolving the equitable claims, and judgment was entered thereafter.
While the district court, in its order resolving the equitable claims, recognized appellant’s
counterclaims for contribution and unjust enrichment, it did not expressly rule on those
claims. Appellant argues that the district court erred by failing to address his
counterclaims.
Respondents argue that appellant forfeited any appellate review of his
counterclaims. We agree. This court “will not review issues raised on appeal where the
[district] court was not given an opportunity to correct its own errors.” Crown Holding
Corp. v. Larson, 410 N.W.2d 373, 375 (Minn. App. 1987) ; see Cogswell v. Eichenberger,
371 N.W.2d 561, 562- 63 (Minn. App. 1985). Following the district court’s order
addressing the equitable claims , appellant moved for amended findings or a new trial.
However, he failed to raise the issue of his counterclaims and merely argued that his brother
should not have been given additional time to exercise the purchase option. Under these
circumstances, appellant forfeited any arguments concerning his counterclaims.
Affirmed.