Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v. Taboada

Relator Noelle Erling challenges an unemployment-law judge's (ULJ) determination that her filing of a false compliance form constituted employment misconduct, rendering her ineligible for unemployment benefits. She argues that (1) the ULJ's findings are not supported by substantial evidence; (2) even accepting the findings, her conduct did not rise to the level of employment misconduct; and (3) the ULJ erred by denying relief on her request for reconsideration. We affirm.

Foreclosure sales—Final orders—Law-of-the-case doctrine does not require this court to adhere to court of appeals' prior determination that foreclosure decree was not a final, appealable order—Foreclosure decree left no issues remaining to be determined as to rights and liabilities of the parties and therefore was a final, appealable order—Court of appeals' judgment reversed and trial court's order confirming sale reinstated.

<p>Appeal by plaintiffs from an order of the district court for Blue Earth county, Severance, J., sustaining a demurrer to their complaint.</p> <p>The complaint alleged that plaintiffs executed to defendant a promissory note for $529, dated May 11,1891, and due September 11, 1891, with interest at the rate of seven per cent, per annum,, secured by-mortgage upon certain real estate. That at the maturity of the note plaintiffs entered into a written agreement with defendant by which the mortgage was extended one year upon payment by plaintiffs of interest on said note to October 11, 1891, “also three per cent, on the face value of said note from said May 11, 1891, till September 11, 1895,” and payment oí six dollars attorney’s fees to a person named. That said mortgage and said agreement were duly recorded in the office of the register of deeds of said county. That the “said mortgage” and “the said agreement so made” “were and are usurious, fraudulent and void, and the rate of interest and the amount thereof secured and taken by the said defendant, for the forbearance of the loan” of $529 from September 11, 1894, until September 11, 1895, “was and is of a greater sum or value than ten per centum per annum thereof and therefor.”</p> <p>The complaint further alleged a foreclosure sale of the mortgaged premises to the defendant on December 4, 1895, and the execution by the sheriff of the county to her of a certificate of such sale, which was duly recorded. That the amount claimed by defendant to be due upon the mortgage at the time of sale was $567.06 and that the land was sold for $613.74, while the amount actually due was $529. That the amount taken and received by the defendant by virtue of such mortgage, agreement and sale was more than “ten dollars on each one hundred dollars of the amount of said mortgage and contract for one year.” That such sale and the proceedings thereof and thereunder were usurious, fraudulent and void. The prayer of the complaint was that the