Opinion
No. C2-93-257.
November 23, 1993.
Appeal from District Court, Scott County; Richard G. Spicer, Judge.
Regina Ward, pro se.
John A. Warchol, Minneapolis, for Duane Frederick Ward.
Considered and decided by HUSPENI, P.J., and CRIPPEN and SHORT, JJ.
UNPUBLISHED OPINION
*1 Appellant Regina Ward challenges postdivorce decree orders denying her motions to enjoin a mortgage foreclosure and block a receiver's sale. Appellant also challenges the dismissal of her emergency medical assistance, parental and human rights claims. We affirm.
FACTS
This dispute arises out of consolidated actions-the divorce case of Duane and Regina Ward, and Duane Ward's suit against appellant and her father Henry Lai for resolution of adverse claims to real estate. Ultimately the parties reached an agreement regarding divorce, custody of two children, child support, spousal maintenance, and property settlement.
Two parcels of real estate are in dispute. The first is a 1.36 acre homestead. The divorce decree awarded the homestead to appellant and held her husband harmless for the outstanding $100,000 home improvement mortgage on the property held by Shearson Lehman Hutton Mortgage Corporation. In July 1992, Shearson Lehman Hutton initiated foreclosure proceedings on the homestead. The trial court denied appellant's motion to enjoin foreclosure.
The second parcel of real estate in dispute is an unencumbered 62.86 acre tract. Pursuant to the stipulated decree this land was to be sold by a court-appointed receiver and the proceeds divided equally between the parties. As part of the overall property settlement appellant agreed to pay respondent $45,000 from her share of the proceeds of this sale. In May 1992, the court-appointed receiver entered into a purchase agreement for the parcel at a price consistent with an independent appraisal of the property. In December 1992, respondent Duane Ward sought a court order authorizing the receiver to proceed with the sale. Appellant opposed the motion on various grounds, including allegations of collusion and fraud, inadequacy of the sale price, and lack of a proper notice of the sale to appellant. Appellant also filed a bankruptcy court reorganization plan and asked the trial court to stay the sale to allow time for a bankruptcy trustee to become involved. Respondent sought and obtained a bankruptcy court order lifting the stay. The trial court subsequently issued an order authorizing the receiver's sale. In addition, the trial court dismissed appellant's claims relating to emergency medical assistance and parental and human rights.
ANALYSIS
A. The Mortgage Foreclosure
Appellant's basis for seeking injunctive relief is her allegation that foreclosure was barred by the Minnesota Farmer-Lender Mediation Act, Minn.Stat. §§ 583.20.32 (1988). But the Act applies only to agricultural properties at least 60 acres in extent earning at least $20,000 in gross sales of agricultural products annually. Minn.Stat. § 583.24, subd. 2(b). The Act does not apply here because appellant's parcel covers only 1.36 acres, is exclusively residential, and earns no income. As a result, appellant has no likelihood of success on the merits of her claim. The trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying issuance of a temporary injunction in these circumstances.
The Farmer-Lender Mediation Act was repealed effective July 1, 1993.
B. The Receiver's Sale
*2 The power to authorize a sale of property under receivership rests with the discretion of the court. Backus v. Jaffray , 73 F.2d 823, 825 (8th Cir. 1934). It is a matter largely within the sound discretion of the court to grant or deny an application to vacate a sale on the ground that the price was inadequate. Northland Pine Co. v. Northern Insulating Co. ,145 Minn. 395, 399, 177 N.W. 635, 637 (1920).
In its memorandum decision the trial court observed that appellant made prior claims of collusion and conspiracy without supporting evidence, and determined that she could best bring these claims in a separate action. As to appellant's bankruptcy filing, the trial court held that the bankruptcy court's order lifting the stay showed that the bankruptcy trustee had no interest in interfering with the sale of the 62.86 parcel. The record also supports the trial court's findings that the receiver complied with the notice requirements and that the price was adequate. The record does not permit the conclusion that the trial court abused its discretion in denying appellant's requests to block the receiver's sale.
C. Emergency Medical Assistance and Parental and Human Rights
The trial court dismissed appellant's various claims in her November 30 motion concerning emergency medical assistance and parental and human rights. Motions in family court must set out with particularity the relief requested and be supported by appropriate affidavits, relevant and material to the issues before the court. Minn.Gen.R.Pract. 303.02(a). Appellant's emergency medical, parental and human rights claims were not clearly set forth and were inadequately supported by relevant affidavits or exhibits. Thus, the trial court's dismissal was not error.
D. Supplemental Affidavits
While our decision was pending, this court received additional affidavits from appellant and her father. The affidavits state appellant's claims for medical assistance and parental and human rights and challenge the trial court's decisions denying appellant's motions to enjoin the mortgage foreclosure and stay the receiver's sale. Appellant disputes many of the findings of fact and conclusions of law made by the trial court. But we cannot disturb the judgment without a substantial showing that the trial court clearly erred in its findings of fact or misapplied the law. See Minn.R.Civ.P. 52.01; Maxfield v. Maxfield , 452 N.W.2d 219, 221 (Minn. 1990); Tonka Tours, Inc. v. Chadima , 372 N.W.2d 723, 726 (Minn. 1985). Having carefully read these affidavits, we conclude that appellant has not met her burden of proof in this regard.
DECISION
The trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying appellant's motions to enjoin the mortgage foreclosure and to stay the receiver's sale, and the trial court did not err in dismissing appellant's emergency medical, parental, and human rights claims.
Affirmed.