Terry Torgerson, Relator v. Mark R. Hellerud, Department of Employment and Economic Development

On certiorari review, relator challenges the decision of an unemployment-law judge (ULJ) that relator is ineligible for unemployment benefits because she was discharged for employment misconduct. Relator argues that the ULJ's decision must be reversed for four reasons: (1) the decision was not supported by substantial evidence; (2) relator's conduct falls under certain statutory exceptions to employment misconduct; (3) the ULJ based its determination on a single incident of misconduct; and (4) relator's employer discharged her as a pretext for age discrimination. We conclude that substantial evidence supports the ULJ's misconduct determination, relator's conduct does not fall under any of the statutory exceptions relator cites, relator's conduct was a serious violation of her employer's reasonable expectations, and relator failed to raise a claim of age discrimination in proceedings before the ULJ and therefore forfeited the issue. Thus, we affirm.

In this mortgage-foreclosure dispute, the district court granted summary judgment for respondent-bank, permitted foreclosure of appellant's property, reformed the underlying mortgage, and dismissed appellant's counterclaims. On appeal, appellant challenges those determinations. Because the district court did not err in granting summary judgment, permitting foreclosure, and reforming the mortgage, and it did not abuse its discretion by denying appellant's motion for relief from final judgment, we affirm.