author: STONEBURNER, Judge.

text:
    Scott JOHNSON and Sue Johnson, individually and d/b/a Marketplace Meats, and as Parents and Natural Guardians of Caitlin Johnson and Austin Johnson, Respondents, v. FOUNDRY, INC., a/k/a Foundry Bar, a/k/a Foundry, Appellant, Lumberjack Lounge, Inc., a/k/a Lumberjack Lounge, Defendant.
    No. A04-2290.
    Court of Appeals of Minnesota.
    Aug. 2, 2005.

      Thomas M. Skare, Skare Law Office, Inc., Cloquet, MN, for respondents.
    Steven E. Tomsche, Bryan B. Carroll, Tomsche, Sonnesyn & Tomsche, P.A., Minneapolis, MN, for appellant.
    Considered and decided by HUDSON, Presiding Judge; STONEBURNER, Judge; and DIETZEN, Judge.
   OPINION

STONEBURNER, Judge.

The district court concluded that the sole shareholders of a corporation whose place of business was damaged by an intoxicated driver may assert a claim under the Minnesota Civil Damages Act, individually and on behalf of their minor children, for loss of means of support based on property damage to the building from which the corporation conducted its business, which damage resulted in lost profits. The district court then certified as an important and doubtful question:

Do the owners of a business who claim lost profits as a result of property damage sustained to the building where the business was located, which damage was caused by the acts of an intoxicated motorist, have claims for loss of means of support, under the Minnesota Civil Damages Act, against the liquor vendor who allegedly made an illegal sale of intoxicating beverages to the intoxicated motorist?

We answer the certified question in the negative.

FACTS

Respondents Susan and Scott Johnson are the sole shareholders of Marketplace Meats, Inc., a retail meat market and grocery business. An intoxicated driver was illegally served alcoholic beverages by appellant Foundry, Inc. and subsequently caused damage to the building from which Marketplace Meats, Inc. conducted business. The corporation lost profits due to the damage. In order to come within the loss-of-means-of-support coverage provision of Foundry’s liquor-liability insurance policy, respondents, suing as individuals and on behalf of their two minor children, asserted a claim under the Minnesota Civil Damages Act for loss of means of support, claiming that they are dependents of the injured corporation.

Foundry moved for summary judgment on the basis that the Act does not contemplate categorizing lost profits from property damage as loss-of-means-of-support damages. The district court denied summary judgment but certified the issue to this court as an important and doubtful question.

ISSUE

Do the owners of a business who claim lost profits as a result of property damage sustained to the building where the business was located, which damage was caused by the acts of an intoxicated motorist, have claims for loss of means of support, under the Minnesota Civil Damages Act, against the liquor vendor who allegedly made an illegal sale of intoxicating beverages to the intoxicated motorist?

ANALYSIS

I. Standard of Review

Minn. R. Civ.App. P. 103.03® provides that an appeal may be taken to this court from an order that denies a motion for summary judgment if the district court “certifies that the question presented is important and doubtful.” On review of a certified question arising from denial of summary judgment, “we review the record to determine whether a genuine issue of material fact exists and whether the law was correctly applied.” Murphy v. Allina Health Sys., 668 N.W.2d 17, 20 (Minn.App.2003), review denied (Minn. Nov. 18, 2003). The parties agree that no material facts are in dispute and that the resolution of the certified question involves the interpretation of the Civil Damages Act. “Interpretation of the Civil Damages Act is a question of law, which an appellate court reviews de novo.” Britamco Underwriters, Inc. v. A & A Liquors of St. Cloud, 649 N.W.2d 867, 871 (Minn.App.2002).

II. A corporation’s lost profits due to property damage inflicted by an intoxicated driver cannot be recovered by shareholders and their dependents as loss-of-means-of-support damages under the Civil Damages Act.

The Minnesota Civil Damages Act provides, in relevant part:

Right of action. A spouse, child, parent, guardian, employer, or other person injured in person, property, or means of support, or who incurs other pecuniary loss by an intoxicated person or by the intoxication of another person, has a right of action in the person’s own name for all damages sustained against a person who caused the intoxication of that person by illegally selling alcoholic beverages.

Minn.Stat. § 340A.801, subd. 1 (2004). The Civil Damages Act (CDA) creates a statutory cause of action against those who furnish liquor where no cause of action existed at common law, and therefore the CDA must be strictly construed. Whitener ex rel. Miller v. Dahl, 625 N.W.2d 827, 833 (Minn.2001). The “legislative purpose of the dram shop act [is] to penalize the illegal sale of liquor and to provide a remedy to those damaged by the illegal sale.” Paulson v. Lapa, Inc., 450 N.W.2d 374, 383-384 (Minn.App.1990), review denied (Minn. Mar. 22,1990).

In order to recover loss-of-means-of-support damages, a plaintiff must demonstrate that “in consequence of the wrongful acts complained of the plaintiffs standard of living or accustomed means of maintenance has been lost or curtailed so that he has been reduced to a state of dependence by being deprived of the support which he had theretofore enjoyed.” Bundy v. City of Fridley, 265 Minn. 549, 553, 122 N.W.2d 585, 588-89 (1963). The inquiry often revolves around the question of whether the decedent or injured person actually provided financial support. E.g., id., 122 N.W.2d at 589 (rejecting loss-of-support claim made by parents of 10-year-old when there was no evidence “that the minor’s death has in any way affected their income or standard of living ... ”). For purposes of answering the certified question, it is not disputed that the business run by the corporation provided income to respondents.

Appellant argues that Britamco is “highly instructive” in this case because it involved a similar attempt to assert a novel loss-of-means-of-support claim in order to qualify for specific coverage under a liquor-liability insurance policy. 649 N.W.2d at 869. In Britamco, Thomas Eul, a person who was injured in an assault at a bar, obtained a default judgment against the bar. Eul then sought a declaratory judgment that he was entitled to loss-of-means-of-support coverage as well as bodily injury coverage under the bar’s liquor-liability policy. Id. This court noted that section 340A.409, subd. 1(1) of the CDA requires a liquor establishment to carry an insurance policy that contains minimum limits for bodily injury, property damage, and loss of means of support, and recognized that the CDA’s modest limits for bodily injury created a lack-of-coverage problem for Eul. Id. at 871, 872. But we held that “[i]t is too clear to be contested that Minnesota law covers Eul’s loss of income and loss of wages under the broad category of bodily injury,” citing the standard civil jury instructions defining bodily injury damages to include loss of wages and loss of future earning capacity. Id. at 872. And we held that “nothing in the history of the CDA remotely permits Eul to convert lost wages to loss-of-support damages and stack those on top of bodily injury damages.” Id. at 872-73.

Britamco holds that “the phrase ‘loss of means of support’ incorporates within it the requirement that a claimant be a dependent.” Id. at 872. The respondents argue that Britamco is distinguishable from this case because Eul was not his own dependent, but respondents are, or were, dependents of the injured corporation. Respondents do not offer any authority or logical argument to support their claim that they qualify as dependents of the corporation. Respondents have not cited, and we have not found, a single case from any jurisdiction involving a claim for loss of means of support based on lost profits or revenue of a corporation, or based on any type of support provided by a business, a corporation, or other nonhuman entity.

Even if there were some authority for the proposition that a corporation can have “dependents,” we cannot ignore the large body of case law demonstrating that a loss-of-support claim under the CDA traditionally arises out of injury to, or death of, a person on whom the claimants are financially dependent that prevents the person from contributing to claimants’ support. E.g. Bundy, 265 Minn. 549, 122 N.W.2d 585 (involving claim based on death of son); State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Village of Isle, 265 Minn. 360, 365, 122 N.W.2d 36, 40 (1963) (affirming award for loss of support to wife when wife’s means of support was “substantially damaged by reason of the injuries and disabilities suffered by her husband whose intoxication was the proximate cause thereof’); Lefto v. Hoggsbreath Enters., Inc., 567 N.W.2d 746 (Minn.App.1997) (allowing claim based on severe and permanent injuries and subsequent loss of support to claimant, who was injured person’s fiancée).

Corporations do not suffer bodily injury or death. At most, a corporation can have a claim for property damage to property owned by the corporation. See Peterson v. Universal Fire and Cas. Ins. Co., 572 N.E.2d 1309, 1311 (Ind.Ct.App.1991) (noting, in context of construing contract language, that “a corporation cannot sustain bodily injury, [but] a corporation may sustain property damage.”). Appellant does not dispute the right of the corporation to recover property damage, which includes damages caused by the destruction of property and damages caused by loss of use of the property. See 4A Minnesota Practice, CIVJIG 92.10 (1999) (including loss of use of property in instruction on losses resulting from damage to or destruction of property).

As in Britamco, we recognize that respondents may have an unfortunate lack-of-coverage problem, but we find nothing in the history of the CDA or case law construing the Act that remotely permits respondents to convert a loss-of-use-of-property damage claim into a loss-of-means-of-support claim merely to stack the coverages available in a liquor-liability insurance policy.

DECISION

Respondents, sole shareholders of a corporation and their dependents, cannot assert the corporation’s claim for lost profits caused by the acts of an intoxicated driver as loss-of-means-of-support damages under the Minnesota Civil Damages Act against the liquor vendor who allegedly made an illegal sale of intoxicating beverages to the driver.

Certified question answered in the negative.


source: Caselaw Access Project

author: MINGE, Judge.

license: Public Domain

text:
    STATE of Minnesota, Respondent, v. Michael Walton HINTON, Appellant.
    No. A04-1220.
    Court of Appeals of Minnesota.
    Aug. 9, 2005.

      Mike Hatch, Attorney General, St. Paul, MN; and Brian D. Roverud, Faribault County Attorney, Blue Earth, MN, for respondent.
    John M. Stuart, State Public Defender, Suzanne M. Senecal-Hill, Assistant Public Defender, Minneapolis, MN, for appellant.
    Considered and decided by HALBROOKS, Presiding Judge; LANSING, Judge; and MINGE, Judge.
   OPINION

MINGE, Judge.

Appellant challenges his conviction of felony violation of an order for protection on two grounds: (1) that it was error to admit a stipulation of his prior convictions into evidence; and (2) that the evidence is insufficient to convict him. We affirm.

FACTS

Appellant Michael Walton Hinton married D.H. on February 4, 1984. After many years of marriage and three children, they separated. On May 15, 2001, the district court issued an order for protection (OFP), which stated that “[Appellant] shall have no contact, either direct or indirect, with [D.H.] whether in person, with or through other persons, by telephone, letter, or in any other way.” Appellant was personally served with a copy of the order, which was effective for two years. On September 24, 2001, appellant was convicted of assaulting D.H. while armed with a dangerous weapon and was sentenced to prison. Appellant had prior convictions on March 23, 1998, and April 14, 2000, for assaulting D.H.

On January 22, 2002, appellant sent a letter to his 15-year-old daughter. The daughter lives with D.H., her mother. Towards the end of the letter appellant wrote “I made an anniversary card.” The envelope contained a separate sheet of paper on which “Happy Anniversary Dianne” was written at the top, followed by the date of the anniversary and dictionary definitions of the words “annihilation,” “anniversary,” “love,” and “unconditional.” On March 6, 2002, appellant was charged with felony violation of an OFP pursuant to Minn.Stat. § 518B.01, subd. 14(d)(1) (Supp.2001).

A jury trial was held on October 1, 2003. At the trial, appellant’s daughter and D.H. testified. According to the daughter, there was an agreed procedure between the daughter and D.H. regarding letters received from appellant. This procedure involved D.H. going through the letters “to make sure there was — -it was all about [the daughter] and stuff, asking questions about [the daughter] and not about [D.H.].” D.H. testified that she opened the envelope sent from appellant and read the letters and the homemade anniversary-card. During the trial, the district court admitted a stipulation by appellant’s attorney regarding appellant’s two prior domestic-assault convictions. The jury found appellant guilty of violating the OFP and appellant filed this appeal.

ISSUES

I. Did the district court err in admitting appellant’s prior convictions by stipulation by his attorney without appellant’s consent on the record?
II. Was the evidence sufficient to support the jury’s verdict?

ANALYSIS

I.

The first issue is whether the district court erred in admitting appellant’s prior convictions by stipulation without appellant’s personal written or oral consent on the record. To establish a felony-level offense, the prosecutor must prove that the defendant has had two or more prior domestic-violence-related offenses within five years. See Minn.Stat. § 518B.01, subd. 14(d)(1) (Supp.2001). At trial, appellant’s attorney and counsel for the state stipulated that appellant had two prior qualifying convictions. Appellant now asserts that because he did not personally agree to waive on the record or in writing the right to have the jury determine the existence of prior offenses, the stipulation was improper and his conviction should be reversed.

A criminal defendant has a constitutional right to a jury trial. U.S. Const. art. Ill, § 2, cl. 3, amend. VI; Minn. Const, art. I, §§ 4, 6; Minn. R.Crim. P. 26.01, subd. 1(1). A defendant’s right to a jury trial includes the right to be tried on each and every element of the charged offense. State v. Bluhm, 457 N.W.2d 256, 260 (Minn.App.1990), aff'd in part, rev’d in part on other grounds, 460 N.W.2d 22 (Minn.1990).

An exception to the right to a jury trial is stipulations and waivers. A defendant may agree to waive a jury determination of a particular element of the offense by stipulating to it. State v. Wright, 679 N.W.2d 186, 191 (Minn.App.2004), review denied (Minn. June 24, 2004); State v. Halseth, 653 N.W.2d 782, 785 (Minn.App.2002). To stipulate to a factual element of the offense, the defendant must personally waive his trial right either orally or in writing. Wright, 679 N.W.2d at 191. In Wright, the defendant was convicted of first-degree criminal sexual conduct based on his sexual contact with a girl under 13 years of age when he was 36 months older. 679 N.W.2d at 188-190. The defendant argued that he was entitled to a new trial because he did not personally waive his jury-trial right when his counsel and the state agreed to stipulate that he was more than 36 months older than the victim. Id. at 190-91. This court reviewed Minn. R.Crim. P. 26.01, subd. 3, and found that stipulating to an element of the offense requires the defendant to waive the right to a jury trial as to that element. Id. at 191. The court found that it was error to accept the stipulation without the defendant’s consent in writing or orally on the record, but held that the error was harmless and did not require a new trial. Id.

In the case before us, the fact covered by the stipulation is the record of appellant’s prior convictions for domestic violence against his wife, D.H. This fact is a necessary element of proving that his violation of the order for protection is a felony-level offense. It is undisputed that appellant did not personally waive his right to a jury determination of these prior convictions. We note that there is no challenge as to the existence of the prior convictions. As presented to us, the record of the convictions is accurate. Thus, although appellant did not personally waive his right to a jury determination on this element of the offense, even if the stipulation to the prior convictions is error, it is clearly harmless.

The United States Supreme Court recently renewed its commitment to the Sixth Amendment right of a defendant to have the prosecutor prove to the jury “all facts legally essential to the punishment.” See Blakely v. Washington, 542 U.S. 296, 124 S.Ct. 2531, 2536, 2543, 159 L.Ed.2d 403 (2004). The Blakely court specifically excluded the fact of a prior conviction from the rule it established for jury determination of other facts. Blakely, 124 S.Ct. at 2536; Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466, 490, 120 S.Ct. 2348, 2362-63, 147 L.Ed.2d 435, (2000) (stating that, in sentencing, the fact of prior convictions may be determined by a judge); see also State v. Mitchell, 687 N.W.2d 393, 399-400 (Minn.App.2004) (stating that judicial determination of prior convictions does not violate defendant’s Sixth Amendment right to jury determination of all facts essential to the punishment), review granted (Minn. Dec. 22, 2004). Our case involves the issue of jury determination of an element of the crime itself, not a sentencing factor. As such, our case deals with a more fundamental stage in criminal procedure. However, the parallel to Blakely is instructive. The fact that Blakely does not require a jury determination of prior convictions indicates that the need for that protection under the Sixth Amendment is not strong in the situation before us. At a minimum, Blakely provides implicit support for the conclusion that a harmless error analysis is appropriate in the case before us.

II.

The next issue is whether the evidence is sufficient to support the jury’s verdict. In considering a claim of insufficient evidence, this court’s review “is limited to a painstaking analysis of the record to determine whether the evidence, when viewed in the light most favorable to the conviction, was sufficient to permit the jurors to reach the verdict which they did.” State v. Webb, 440 N.W.2d 426, 430 (Minn.1989). The reviewing court will not disturb the verdict if the jury, acting with due regard for the presumption of innocence and the requirement of proof beyond a reasonable doubt, could reasonably conclude that the defendant was guilty of the charged offense. State v. Alton, 432 N.W.2d 754, 756 (Minn.1988).

To convict appellant of felony violation of an OFP, the state had to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that (1) there was an existing court order for protection; (2) the defendant knew of the order; (3) the defendant violated a term or condition of the order for protection; and (4) the defendant committed this crime within five years of the defendant’s previous two convictions for domestic-violence-related offenses. Minn.Stat. § 518B.01, subd. 14(b), (d)(1) (Supp.2001); State v. Colvin, 629 N.W.2d 135, 138 (Minn.App.2001) (stating that “[t]he state is required to prove the existence, and defendant’s awareness, of the order for protection, in addition to a violation of the order.”), rev’d on other grounds, 645 N.W.2d 449 (Minn.2002).

The state submitted evidence of the OFP and that it was in effect at the time. There was also evidence that defendant was properly served with the OFP and that he knew the nature of its restrictions. The stipulation at issue established appellant’s two prior convictions dated March 23, 1998 and August 14, 2000, for domestic-assault-related offenses; these were clearly within five years of the current offense. The critical factual question is whether the state proved beyond a reasonable doubt that appellant violated a condition of the OFP. Appellant argues that because he was entitled to communicate with his children and the envelope and enclosed letter were addressed to his daughter, this element was not proved. However, appellant knew his daughter was living with D.H. Appellant did not merely mention their anniversary, but included a separate anniversary card which stated “Happy Anniversary Dianne.” Although the evidence against appellant is not overwhelming, the jury could reasonably conclude that appellant indirectly sent the card to D.H. by sending it to his daughter. This violates the terms of the OFP prohibiting indirect contact by letter. Appellant does not challenge the breadth of this OFP. We conclude that the evidence was sufficient to support the jury’s determination of guilt.

DECISION

The admission of the undisputed record of appellant’s prior convictions was harmless error. Also the record is sufficient to support the jury’s verdict and appellant’s conviction.

Affirmed.

      . We note that Minnesota courts have recognized that a district court should accept a defendant's stipulation to prior convictions unless the prior convictions are relevant to some disputed issue. See, e.g., State v. Davidson, 351 N.W.2d 8, 11-12 (Minn.1984); State v. Berkelman, 355 N.W.2d 394, 397 (Minn.1984); State v. Clark, 375 N.W.2d 59, 62 (Minn.App.1985); see also Old Chief v. United States, 519 U.S. 172, 191-92, 117 S.Ct. 644, 655-56, 136 L.Ed.2d 574 (1997). Also, because of the prejudicial nature of prior convictions, this court has reversed convictions in circumstances in which a district court refused to accept a stipulation. See, e.g., State v. Allen, 375 N.W.2d 82, 84-85 (Minn.App.1985), review denied (Minn. Dec. 19, 1985); hut see Davidson, 351 N.W.2d at 12. Although these cases are not directly relevant to the issue before us, they illustrate that it is typically to the defendant's advantage to avoid presenting the question of prior convictions to the jury.


author: HALBROOKS, Judge. MINGE, Judge

text:
    Jayne FRASER, Respondent, v. James FRASER, Respondent, Gerald Fraser, individually and as Trustee of the Gerald R. Fraser Revocable Intervivos Trust Agreement, Appellant.
    No. A04-2138.
    Court of Appeals of Minnesota.
    Aug. 16, 2005.
    Review Denied Oct. 18, 2005.

      Kenneth Hertz, Hertz Law Offices, P.A., Columbia Heights, MN, for respondent Jayne Fraser.
    James Fraser, New Hope, MN, pro se respondent James Fraser.
    Paul W. Chamberlain, Chamberlain Law Firm, Wayzata, MN, for appellant Gerald Fraser.
    Considered and decided by MINGE, Presiding Judge; LANSING, Judge; and HALBROOKS, Judge.
   OPINION

HALBROOKS, Judge.

Appellant father challenges the decision of the district court construing the agreement between him and respondents as an equitable mortgage rather than a contract for deed. The parties in this case have appeared before this court in the past regarding this same issue. In 2002, the district court granted summary judgment in favor of respondent wife on her claim that father had an equitable mortgage and hence that father’s statutory cancellation of the contract for deed was not effective. Father appealed, and we remanded for the district court to resolve the question of the intent of the parties to the conveyance. After a court trial, the district court once again held that father held an equitable mortgage on the property, concluding that respondents conveyed title to the property as security for a loan from appellant. Father moved for amended findings or a new trial. The district court denied the motion, and father appealed from the judgment. Because the district court did not clearly err, we affirm.

FACTS

Respondents James Fraser (husband) and Jayne Fraser (wife) (collectively, the couple) sought to buy a home in Big Lake, but were unable to obtain financing due to credit problems. According to husband, his father, appellant Gerald Fraser (father), a real-estate broker, then agreed “that if [husband] could find a house that [husband] could afford[,] [father] would help [husband] acquire it by ... purchasing it and selling it to [husband] in a contract for deed.”

The couple subsequently found property in which they were interested. The property was encumbered by substantial federal- and state-tax liens. Husband, an accountant, negotiated settlements with the IRS and the State of Minnesota to clear the title. The couple entered into a purchase agreement with the sellers to buy the property for $55,250, a figure that included a $6,250 credit for husband’s services in negotiating the lien settlements.

Father then transferred money to husband. The couple used the funds to get cashier’s checks to pay the tax liens. At the closing, the sellers quitclaimed the property to husband and wife, who quit-claimed it to father. Father, in turn, sold the property back to husband and wife on a contract for deed. The couple was represented by counsel during these dealings, but father was not.

Husband later filed for divorce and moved from the property. Under the temporary order, wife was awarded use of the home, and husband was ordered to make the contract-for-deed payments. When husband failed to make the payments, father attempted to serve husband and wife with a notice of cancellation of the contract for deed. The district court initially joined father as a party to the couple’s dissolution proceeding and enjoined him from canceling the contract for deed, but later reversed itself and vacated the injunction, ruling that it had lacked jurisdiction over father and that the injunction against canceling the contract for deed had been incorrectly issued. Wife then filed a separate action against husband and father, asserting equitable defenses to the contract-for-deed cancellation, including that father’s interest in the house was an equitable mortgage. On reconsideration in the dissolution action, the district court concluded that, because the earlier injunction was void for lack of jurisdiction, the period to cure the contract-for-deed default had expired.

Father then filed an eviction action against wife and obtained a writ of recovery for the property, which was stayed to allow wife to appeal. Wife separately appealed the eviction and the dissolution order vacating the injunction. This court consolidated the appeals and remanded portions of the eviction for the district court to address wife’s claims of defective service of the notice of cancellation and the propriety of addressing wife’s equitable defenses in the eviction action. Fraser v. Fraser, 642 N.W.2d 34, 41 (Minn.App.2002) (“Fraser I ”). If appropriate, the district court was also to address the equitable defenses. Id.

On remand in the eviction proceeding, the district court rejected wife’s service arguments, did not address wife’s equitable claims, and ruled that father was entitled to immediate possession of the property. In the meantime, the parties made cross-motions for summary judgment in the wife’s suit that alleged equitable defenses to the contract-for-deed cancellation. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of wife on her claim that father had an equitable mortgage and, hence, that father’s statutory cancellation of the contract for deed was ineffective.

On appeal, this court noted that “a deed absolute on its face” will be held to be an equitable mortgage only if it “appear[s] that both parties so intended.” Fraser v. Fraser, No. C3-02-2219, 2003 WL 21743707, at *3 (MinruApp. July 29, 2003) (“Fraser II ”) (emphasis omitted) (quoting Ministers Life & Cas. Union v. Franklin Park Towers Corp., 307 Minn. 134, 140, 239 N.W.2d 207, 211 (1976)). “Because the record [was] unclear regarding the intent of the parties to the conveyance, we remand[ed] for the district court to resolve the intent-related questions.” Fraser II, 2003 WL 21743707, at *4. The district court was, to the extent required, to construe any documents necessary for the resolution of the case. Id.

On remand, the district court once again determined that father had an equitable mortgage on the property, concluding that “[t]he facts surrounding the transaction at issue provide[d] clear and convincing evidence that the parties intended a security agreement rather than an absolute conveyance.” In support of its decision, the district court noted that “[a]ll of the parties at various times characterized the transfer of funds as a loan” and that husband and wife held title to the property prior to conveying it to father “without further consideration.” The district court also concluded that the value of the property conveyed exceeded the amount of money transferred to husband by father, a situation “favoring the finding of an equitable mortgage.” This appeal follows.

ISSUES

1. Did the district court err by holding that the transaction created an equitable mortgage?
2. Did the district court err by concluding that there was no agency relationship between father and husband and wife?
3. Is wife equitably estopped from claiming relief in the form of an equitable mortgage?

ANALYSIS

A district court’s findings of fact “shall not be set aside unless clearly erroneous, and due regard shall be given to the opportunity of the [district] court to judge the credibility of the witnesses.” Minn. R. Civ. P. 52.01. We defer to the district court’s assessment of credibility. See Sigurdson v. Isanti County, 386 N.W.2d 715, 721 (Minn.1986) (stating that “[a]n appellate court cannot judge the credibility of a witness or the weight, if any, to be given to testimony”). A finding is clearly erroneous only if it is “manifestly contrary to the weight of the evidence or not reasonably supported by the evidence as a whole.” Randall v. N. Milk Prods., Inc., 519 N.W.2d 456, 458 (Minn.App.1994) (quotation omitted).

I. Equitable Mortgage

In general,
when the real nature of the transaction between the parties is that of a loan, advanced upon the security of realty granted to the party making the loan, it may be treated as an equitable mortgage, without regard to the actual form of the instrument of conveyance. It is within the province of the [district] court to determine, by looking beyond that form, the actual character of the transaction. An equitable mortgage is created when the parties to the transaction intended it to be essentially a security transaction.

First Nat’l Bank of St. Paul v. Ramier, 311 N.W.2d 502, 503 (Minn.1981) (citations omitted). “[A] deed absolute in form is presumed to be, and will be treated as, a conveyance unless both parties in fact intended a loan transaction with the deed as security only.” Ministers Life & Cas. Union v. Franklin Park Towers Corp., 307 Minn. 134, 137-38, 239 N.W.2d 207, 210 (1976) (emphasis added).

[B]efore a court will hold a deed absolute on its face to be an equitable mortgage, it must appear that both parties so intended, ... even if one party actually intended to enter into a mortgage agreement, unless the other party had the same intention, the transaction should not be construed to be an equitable mortgage.

Id. at 140, 239 N.W.2d at 211 (second emphasis added). The relevant intention is that of the parties at the time of conveyance. St. Paul Mercury Indem. Co. v. Lyell, 216 Minn. 7, 11, 11 N.W.2d 491, 494 (1943). “[I]ntention is to be ascertained by the written memorials of the transaction and the attendant facts and circumstances.” Westberg v. Wilson, 185 Minn. 307, 309, 241 N.W. 315, 316 (1932).

Father contends that the district court erred in finding that the parties intended to enter into an equitable mortgage, arguing that both the relevant documents and the testimony of the parties demonstrate an unequivocal intention to enter into a contract for deed. Specifically, father cites his testimony that he “[a]b-solutely” did not intend to enter into a mortgage and husband’s testimony that “[a] loan was never discussed,” as well as a letter from father to the couple’s attorney stating that he had “no intention of granting [the couple] a mortgage.” Father also maintains that wife never testified regarding her intent. Further, father points to supplemental language added to the contract for deed, which states that “[the][c]ontraet shall not be construed and interpreted as a title transaction and shall not be construed and interpreted as an ‘equitable mortgage’ as that term is defined by Minnesota law.”

But, as the district court noted, there was also evidence supporting a conclusion that the parties intended to enter into an equitable mortgage. The district court pointed to testimony from all of the parties characterizing the fund transfer as a loan. In an affidavit, husband stated that

[father] loaned us $56,000.00 to purchase the house.... The final result was that we purchased a home and [father] financed the purchase. [Father] gave us $56,000.00, and in return he received fee ownership of the property in question and gave us a [contract for [d]eed so that the money he loaned us was secure.

(Emphasis added.) Husband also testified at trial that “father financed the house and the financing vehicle was a contract for deed.”

Father likewise testified that he “certainly did lend $56,000” and that he “lent [the] money only on security of the house.” Even father’s denial evinces a loan agreement:

Q: Isn’t it true ... that you lent the monies to [husband] and [wife] so that they could purchase the house—
A: I did not lend money to anyone. I gave the money to [husband] to buy the house which he was to pay back in the form of a contract for deed.

(Emphasis added.)

Moreover, despite father’s contention to the contrary, the record includes testimony from wife that goes to the question of intent.

Q: And what was your understanding as to [father’s] involvement in this transaction?
A: [Father] was always a lender. He was never anything more.

The record indicates that father, a former real-estate agent and broker, knew and accepted the potential consequences of the financing arrangement. On May 5, 1997, father sent a letter to Steven Thor-son, the attorney for the couple, about financing the purchase of the property, stating, “I agreed to finance the house for [husband] on the basis that I would be the owner and sell the property to him on a contract-for-deed. I have no intention of granting [the couple] a mortgage.” The next day, Thorson responded:

[F]rom your perspective, a contract for deed is the worst way for you to secure your interest in the property. The reason for this is that, if you insist on a contract for deed, [husband] and [wife] are going to need to deed the property to you immediately after their closing with [sellers] and then sign a recordable contract for deed with you. The net result, in spite of the words “contract for deed” appearing on the document, is that you will have an equitable mortgage under Minnesota law, not a contract.
To get a good contract for deed, you would need to be the purchaser directly from [sellers]. But, we cannot do that here because part of the purchase price is being paid with personal-serviees-ren-dered from [husband].[]

(Emphasis added.) Father subsequently wrote back, noting that he had received Thorson’s letter and acknowledging that neither Thorson nor Thorson’s firm represented him in the matter. Father then stated:

I have consulted with my own lawyer [and] I hereby waive any requirement to consult with [my] own lawyer regarding my request to obtain a contract for deed as the security instrument secunng a loan to be made to [husband] and [ ] wife for the purchase of real property. I further acknowledge that you have characterized the security arrangement as one which will create an equitable mortgage and that you asked me to consider the consequences.
I understand that [husband] and [wife] will receive a deed from [sellers], and that they will deed the property to me, and that I will receive a contract for deed from [husband] and [wife]. This is my request. I understand the consequences.

(Emphasis added.)

The record thus contains evidence that reasonably supports the district court’s finding regarding the intent of the parties. On this record, we cannot say that the district court clearly erred in finding that the parties intended to enter into an equitable mortgage. Randall, 519 N.W.2d at 458.

Father also argues that there can be no equitable mortgage in this case because the couple never held title to the property. He notes that “[i]f one never owned the property and was only trying to purchase the property in the first instance ... equity does not require she be prevented from purchasing property on a contract for deed.” As we noted in Miller v. Anderson, 394 N.W.2d 279 (Minn.App.1986), “[t]itle to the property involved in an equitable mortgage starts with the borrower and passes to the lender as security for the money borrowed.” Id. at 283. Where, in contrast, title originates with the lender, no equitable mortgage is created. Id.

Father contends that such is the situation here. He asserts that “[h]ad [husband] and [wife] owned the home and pledged it to [father] for money they needed, an equitable mortgage might apply. Yet that never happened here. [The couple] owned nothing and had nothing to pledge.” (Emphasis added.)

But this is a plain misstatement of fact. It is uncontested that the sellers quit-claimed the property to the couple, who then quitclaimed it to father. During the interim, husband and wife owned the property. That they owned it for only a short time is immaterial. Father has not pointed to any authority suggesting that, in order to create an equitable mortgage, there is a minimum time for which borrowers must hold property prior to pledging it as security for a loan.

Father suggests that because the documents were executed at the same time, they should be “construed as forming one contract, rather than separate and distinct contracts.” In support, he cites Farrell v. Johnson, 442 N.W.2d 805 (Minn.App.1989), which states, “Generally, instruments executed at the same time, by the same parties, relating to the same transaction will be considered and construed together, since they are, in the eyes of the law, one contract or instrument.” Id. at 806.

But Farrell is inapposite — the instruments in question neither involved the “same parties” nor related to the “same transaction.” Here, two separate transactions occurred. The parties to the first transaction — transferring title to the couple — were husband, wife, and the sellers. The parties to the second transaction— transferring title to father — were husband, wife, and father. Father was not a party to the first transaction, nor were the sellers parties to the second.

Although the two transfers occurred at the same closing, they were separate transactions. Accordingly, the district court did not err in concluding that an equitable mortgage existed when the couple held title to the property and then conveyed title to father as security for a loan. Cf. Miller, 394 N.W.2d at 283 (noting that, in an equitable mortgage, title passes from the borrower to the lender as security).

At oral argument, father noted that if the sellers had conveyed the property directly to him, without title passing through the couple, there would be no question that the conveyance in question was a contract for deed. We agree that, had the parties handled the transaction differently, the outcome would also be different. But we must consider the events as they actually occurred, not as they might have transpired. For whatever reason, the sellers declined to sell the property to father. Nonetheless, he chose to continue the transaction, rather than withdrawing. In a letter to the couple’s attorney, father indicated that he understood the consequences of that decision. He cannot now avoid those consequences by positing alternative scenarios.

Father also challenges the district court’s finding that the value of the property exceeded the contract price and contends that, even if this were the case, it has no bearing on the question of the existence of an equitable mortgage. At trial, wife testified that the original listing price for the home was $99,000. The district court found, based on the evidence at trial, that the face value of the federal-and state-tax liens on the property was $85,000 to $90,000. Father affirms that the couple ultimately paid less than $50,000 to satisfy the hens on the property. The purchase agreement that husband and wife signed with the sellers was for $55,250 plus credit for husband’s services in negotiating settlement of the liens. Thus, there is evidence from which the district court could reasonably conclude that the value of the property exceeded the contract price.

While not determinative of the issue, when considering whether an equitable mortgage was intended, “[a district] court could take into consideration the fact that the value of the property was greater than the consideration given for the deed.” Gagne v. Hoban, 280 Minn. 475, 480, 159 N.W.2d 896, 900 (1968). Accordingly, the district court did not err in so doing.

II. Agency

Father next argues that husband was acting as his agent in purchasing the property and contends that the district court erred by concluding that no agency relationship existed. In Fraser II, we

rejected] this argument because it assumes that, in acquiring the property from the sellers, husband and wife were, essentially, agents of father through whom the property passed on its way to father. The purchase agreement, however, (a) was between the sellers and husband and wife; (b) does not state that husband and wife were agents of father or otherwise acting on father’s behalf; and (c) states that neither the sellers nor the buyers could convey their interests under the purchase agreement without the other side’s consent. Thus, if husband and wife were only agents for father, they either entered the agreement knowing that they were not the actual buyers and that father was or, after entering the purchase agreement as legitimate purchasers, they improperly transferred their rights under the agreement to father without the sellers’ consent. Also, part of the purchase price was “paid” when the sellers gave husband credit for CPA work he had done for the sellers. Because this credit made the sale possible in the form that it occurred, we cannot say on this record that husband was acting in a mere representative capacity.

2003 WL 21743707, at *3 (emphasis added).

This determination is thus the law of the case and will not be re-examined here. Brezinka v. Bystrom Bros., Inc., 403 N.W.2d 841, 843 (Minn.1987).

The doctrine of law of the case is distinct from the doctrines of res judica-ta and stare decisis, even though similar underlying policy considerations are involved. Law of the case applies most commonly to situations where an appellate court has passed on a legal question and remanded to the court below for further proceedings. The legal question thus determined by the appellate court will not be re-examined on a second appeal of the same case.

Id.

III. Equitable Estoppel

Finally, father argues that wife should be equitably estopped from asserting the existence of an equitable mortgage because she slept on her rights and came before the court with unclean hands. Specifically, father contends that wife should have been denied equitable relief because she did not raise the equitable mortgage issue until the contract for deed had already been cancelled. Although the district court did not explicitly address the equitable-estoppel issue, it implicitly rejected father’s argument by finding the existence of an equitable mortgage.

Father’s argument is without merit. It is well settled that an equitable-mortgage defense to a contract-for-deed cancellation may be asserted after the redemption period has expired. See Albright v. Henry, 285 Minn. 452, 462-63, 174 N.W.2d 106, 112 (1970) (noting that because cancellation does not effect a valid foreclosure of an equitable mortgage, the contention that an equitable-mortgage claim must be asserted within the contract-for-deed redemption period is “entirely without authority or merit”); Coddon v. Youngkrantz, 562 N.W.2d 39, 44 (Minn.App.1997) (holding that equitable defenses to a contract for deed may be asserted despite the expiration of the redemption period), review denied (Minn. July 10, 1997). Moreover, we concluded in Fraser I that wife could raise the equitable-mortgage defense in a proper proceeding, such as the current action. 642 N.W.2d at 39-40. Consequently, the district court did not err in implicitly rejecting father’s equitable-estoppel argument.

DECISION

Because title to the property in this case passed first from the original seller to the borrower and subsequently passed from the borrower to the lender as security on a contract for deed, the possibility arose that an equitable mortgage had been created. The existence of an equitable mortgage depends upon the intent of the parties at the time of conveyance. The record contains evidence from which the district court could reasonably find that the parties intended to enter into an equitable mortgage. An equitable-mortgage defense need not be asserted within a contract-for-deed redemption period. We therefore affirm the district court’s decision.

Affirmed.

MINGE, Judge

(concurring specially).

I concur in the opinion of the court and add the following analysis. Parties are generally accorded the right to contract between themselves with respect to their business affairs and to enforce their contracts according to their terms. Pollock-Halvarson v. McGuire, 576 N.W.2d 451, 454-55 (Minn.App.1998), review denied (Minn. May 28, 1998). Similarly, real-estate documents are commonly recorded and third parties rely on those documents. Cf. In re Bernard, 584 N.W.2d 272, 275 (Minn.1995) (noting that “[t]he vast number of people who rely on the real[-]estate recording system as a valid and efficient process rely on the genuineness of the documents recorded thereunder”). Predictability and enforceability of contracts is important in our legal system. This principle is subject to limitations that reflect important public policies. Important among these limitations is the doctrine of equitable mortgages. This doctrine is designed to protect borrowers from overreaching by lenders who seek to use absolute deeds to avoid the delay and expense of a foreclosure and to obtain the borrower’s residual equity in real estate. See Restatement (Third) of Property: Mortgages § 3.2, cmt. a (1997) (discussing the courts’ use of equitable-mortgage doctrine to counter attempts by lenders to avoid mortgagors’ “equity of redemption”).

In Minnesota, the contract for deed is a well established, specifically recognized arrangement for financing the purchase of real estate. In re Butler, 552 N.W.2d 226, 230 (Minn.1996). Cancellation of such contracts must follow certain statutory procedures. MinmStat. § 559.21 (2004). These accord the buyer notice and opportunity for cure. Also, with respect to family farmers purchasing farmland, the statute provides a right to mediation. MinmStat. § 559.209 (2004).

One of the issues before us is whether the parties have the flexibility to structure this transaction as a contract for deed. There is no dispute that the father intended to finance the purchase of the property. The terms of the contract are not onerous; it uses the uniform conveyancing blank format. In fact, if this transaction is classified as a mortgage, the parties agree that the same terms would be used and that the entire balloon payment is due. But the statutory redemption period for this contract is short compared to the redemption period that would be required if the transaction had been set up as a mortgage with foreclosure by advertisement. Compare MinmStat. § 559.21 with Minn.Stat. § 580.23 (2004). In addition, given the evidence of the actual value of the land, the wife’s apparent financial circumstances and likely title complications, refinancing or sale may be difficult and a quick contract-for-deed cancellation exposes her to a substantial risk of forfeiting all equity while the public sale and redemption process in a mortgage foreclosure minimizes that risk. See Butler, 552 N.W.2d at 230 (stating that in contrast to a mortgage foreclosure sale, cancellation of a contract for deed restores full ownership to vendor and terminates all rights between the parties to the contract for deed).

Furthermore, as this court’s opinion demonstrates, the transaction is not a good fit for a contract for deed. The original seller is not financing the sale. Instead, the buyers served as a conduit to transfer nominal title to father to give him the status of seller and to then sell the premises back to the buyers on what the parties agreed would be a “contract for deed.” This unusual combination of transactions appears in the real-estate record and should be adequate to place third parties on notice that the arrangement is unusual.

On balance, I concur in the result. The district court did not err or abuse its discretion in treating the transaction as an equitable mortgage. This is a heavily regulated area of real-estate financing. It is not a commercial transaction. Although the buyers had counsel, they were economically stressed. The father was not the real seller. The nominal price did not reflect the son’s contribution to the purchase or the apparent fair market value of the property. The father knew the risks involved. The public record discloses that the parties deeded the property in a fashion that is inconsistent with the normal contract for deed transaction. Thus, predictability and stability in contractual arrangements is not sacrificed by the result reached in this case. Probably the most difficult aspect of the result is that the flexibility of financing is denied. This may be a detriment and may preclude some transactions that are not so unfair as to require application of the equitable-mortgage doctrine. But given the debtor’s rights in real estate transactions, this limitation on flexibility reflects a deeply-rooted policy in this state.

      . Structuring a real-estate transaction as a contract for deed or a mortgage carries with it substantial consequences. One remedy available to a seller upon the buyer’s defaulting under the terms of the contract for deed is the seller's ability to cancel the contract. Depending on when they were executed and the proportion of the purchase price paid by the purchaser, contracts for deed may be terminated in 30-90 days after notice of default. Minn.Stat. § 559.21 (2004). Once statutory notice has been served and cancellation effected, all rights between the parties under a contract for deed are terminated. West v. Wallcer, 181 Minn. 169, 171, 231 N.W. 826, 827 (1930).
      In contrast, a mortgage must be foreclosed, either by advertisement or by action. As we have stated:
      A foreclosure by advertisement takes place without recourse to the courts, and is a proceeding in pais, ex parte, and in rem. A foreclosure by action requires a judicial decree and approval of sale and is an in personam proceeding, although it is in the nature of a proceeding in rem since its purpose is to enforce a lien on the mortgaged property.

        Norwest Bank Hastings Nat’l Assoc, v. Franz-meier, 355 N.W.2d 431, 433 (Minn.App.1984) (citation omitted). After foreclosure, depending upon the date of the mortgage and the nature of the real estate, a mortgagor has 6-12 months in which to redeem the property. Minn.Stat. § 580.23 (2004).
      The financial effects of cancellation versus foreclosure also differ dramatically.
      A statutory cancellation of a contract for deed results in the vendee’s forfeiture of all payments made and restoration of full legal and equitable title in the property to the vendor. This result is different from that in a mortgage foreclosure sale, where the defaulting party may receive proceeds of a mortgage foreclosure sale above the amount owed on the property.

        Shields v. Goldetsky (In re Butler), 552 N.W.2d 226, 230 (Minn. 1996).

      . In Fraser II, we noted the presence of conflicting evidence regarding intent. 2003 WL 21743707, at ⅜3. It was for the purpose of resolving this issue that we remanded. Id. at *4.

      . Father contends that the district court erred in considering this letter because it was admitted with the provision that it was not to prove the truth of the matter asserted under Minn. R. Evid. 801. But contrary to father's assertion, the district court did not rely on this letter to establish that an equitable mortgage existed. Rather, the district court used the letter to establish that father had been informed of Thorson's opinion that the structure of the transaction would create an equitable mortgage. The district court further noted that father then responded to Thorson, acknowledging Thorson’s characterization and indicating that father understood the consequences.

      . The district court likewise addressed father’s argument that "the 'unified closing' provided no break in the chain of title and that [the couple] had no interest in the property to transfer as security,” noting that this argument "ignores the reality of the transaction” and is "contrary to the evidence and the law.”

      . This section has been repealed as of June 30, 2005. 2001 Minn. Laws 1st Spec. Sess. ch. 1, art 2 § 25.


author: WRIGHT, Judge.

text:
    In the Matter of the WELFARE OF R. V., Child.
    No. A04-2007.
    Court of Appeals of Minnesota.
    Aug. 23, 2005.

      Leonardo Castro, Hennepin County Public Defender, Barbara S. Isaacman, Assistant Public Defender, Minneapolis, MN, for appellant.
    Mike Hatch, Attorney General, St. Paul, MN; and Amy Klobuchar, Hennepin County Attorney, Donna J. Wolfson, Assistant County Attorney, Minneapolis, MN, for respondent State.
    Considered and decided by HALBROOKS, Presiding Judge; LANSING, Judge; and WRIGHT, Judge.
   OPINION

WRIGHT, Judge.

Appellant, a juvenile, challenges the district court’s revocation of probation and order directing out-of-home placement. Appellant argues that the district court violated his right to due process when revoking his probation and abused its discretion by ordering out-of-home placement and by failing to issue sufficient written findings in support of its disposition. We conclude that the district court did not violate appellant’s due-process rights when revoking his probation, but the district court failed to make sufficient findings in support of its disposition. We, therefore, affirm the portion of the district court’s order revoking appellant’s probation, reverse the disposition, and remand for additional findings addressing the appropriate disposition for the violation.

FACTS

In October 2003, appellant R.V. was adjudicated delinquent on one count of unlawful possession of a firearm, in violation of Minn.Stat. § 624.713, subd. 1(a) (2002). The district court placed R.V. on probation and stayed commitment to the Beta program on the condition that R.V. obey the law and attend the Hennepin County Gun Program.

In December 2003, R.V. appeared before the district court for a revocation hearing on allegations that he had failed to attend the gun program and had tested positive for marijuana. The district court found the allegations to be true. But because R.V. had spent nine days in detention, the district court reinstated his probation, ordered him to complete the gun program without missing any sessions, and placed him on electronic home monitoring until he could enter the program. The district court specifically warned R.V. that if he did not cooperate with his mother, he would probably receive an out-of-home placement.

In February 2004, R.V.’s probation officer issued an arrest-and-detention notice, alleging that R.V. had missed two gun-program meetings, had left home following a family argument, and was possibly involved in gang activities. R.V. waived his right to a probation-revocation hearing and admitted the allegations. The district court then revoked his probation and ordered him to complete the Beta program and to continue to comply with the prior court orders. R.V. was released from the Beta program in March 2004.

In May 2004, R.V.’s probation officer issued another arrest-and-detention notice, alleging that R.V. was regularly truant from school, was out of parental control, and had absconded from home continually since his release from the Beta program. R.V. was arrested and appeared for a probation-revocation hearing. R.V. did not admit any probation violations or waive his right to a contested hearing, but he agreed to waive his right to a hearing within seven days after the time of his arrest so that a 30-day evaluation could be completed. Despite R.V.’s objection, the district court placed R.V. at Bar None, a secure facility, after learning that the placement R.V. had requested was not an option.

The parties returned to court in early July, after the Bar None evaluation was completed. Proceeding under the mistaken impression that R.V. had admitted to violating probation and had waived his right to a contested hearing, the district court proceeded to the disposition stage and ordered R.V. to complete the 12-month program at the County Home School.

In late July, R.V. moved to vacate the district court’s order, claiming that he had been deprived of his right to a contested hearing. R.V. also filed an appeal. Recognizing that R.V. had not in fact waived a hearing or admitted any probation violations, the district court immediately vacated its previous order and scheduled a revocation hearing for September. R.V. was ordered to remain at the County Home School pending the hearing, and R.V. dismissed the appeal.

At the September revocation hearing, the district court stated that it would consider only the allegations in the arrest- and-detention notice as the basis for the alleged probation violations. R.V. then waived his right to a hearing and admitted that he had absconded from home and that he had not attended certain classes at school.

The district court determined that R.V.’s admissions were sufficient to support a finding that he had violated his probation. Relying on the record as a whole, the district court then concluded that, given R.V.’s “extensive needs” and his “progression into extremely anti-social behavior,” placement at the County Home School was the least-restrictive alternative available to return R.V. to law-abiding behavior and reaffirmed its July order. This appeal from the district court’s September 2004 disposition order followed.

ISSUES

I. Did -the district court violate R.V.’s right to due process when revoking his probation?

II. Did the district court abuse its discretion by failing to apply the Austin three-step analysis in revoking R.V.’s probation?

III. Did the district court issue sufficient written findings in support of its disposition?

ANALYSIS

The district court has broad discretion in determining whether the evidence justifies the revocation of probation. State v. Austin, 295 N.W.2d 246, 249-50 (Minn.1980). When choosing the appropriate disposition in a juvenile-delinquency case, the district court also is afforded broad discretion. In re the Welfare of J.S.S., 610 N.W.2d 364, 366 (Minn.App.2000). Therefore, absent a clear abuse of discretion, we will affirm a revocation order and a disposition. Id.

I.

R.V. argues that the district court violated his right to due process by initially revoking his probation without a hearing and by detaining him in a secure facility pending the September hearing, without considering alternative placements. R.V. also argues that the district court violated his right to due process by revoking his probation based on status offenses and by relying on hearsay in ordering the out-of-home placement.

Although the Due Process Clause of the United States Constitution does not guarantee a minor all the procedural safeguards of a criminal trial, in a delinquency proceeding in which a juvenile’s liberty is at stake, the Due Process Clause guarantees a juvenile (1) the right to written notice of the specific charges or factual allegations against the juvenile, sufficiently in advance of scheduled court proceedings to allow counsel an opportunity to prepare; (2) the right to be advised of the right to retained or appointed counsel; (3) the right to cross-examine and confront adverse witnesses; and (4) the right to assert the privilege against self-incrimination. In re Gault, 387 U.S. 1, 33-34, 41, 55-56, 87 S.Ct. 1428, 1446-47, 1451, 1458-59, 18 L.Ed.2d 527 (1967). A juvenile charged with a violation that would constitute a crime if committed by an adult also has a due-process right to be adjudicated only upon proof beyond a reasonable doubt. In re Winship, 397 U.S. 358, 368, 90 S.Ct. 1068, 1075, 25 L.Ed.2d 368 (1970). The applicable due-process standard in a juvenile proceeding is “fundamental fairness” with “an emphasis on factfinding procedures.” McKeiver v. Pennsylvania, 403 U.S. 528, 543, 91 S.Ct. 1976, 1985, 29 L.Ed.2d 647 (1971). Whether a proceeding violates a juvenile’s right to due process is a question of law, which we review de novo. Albright v. Oliver, 510 U.S. 266, 294, 114 S.Ct. 807, 823, 127 L.Ed.2d 114 (1994) (stating that whether the demands of due process are satisfied solely by compliance with procedural formalities is a question of law); Carrillo v. Fabian, 701 N.W.2d 763, 768, 2005 WL 1773989, at *3 (Minn. July 28, 2005) (“Whether due process is required in a particular case is a question of law, which we review de novo.”).

The record demonstrates that R.V. received timely notice of the specific allegations against him, that he was represented by counsel at all times, and that he received a hearing at which he was afforded the right to present witnesses and documentary evidence, the right to cross-examine and confront adverse witnesses, and the right not to incriminate himself. R.V. argues, nonetheless, that the district court violated his due-process rights in several ways.

R.V. first argues that the district court violated his due-process rights by initially revoking his probation and ordering out-of-home placement without a hearing. Admittedly, the district court initially revoked R.V.’s probation and ordered out-of-home placement without a hearing, proceeding under the mistaken assumption that R.V. had waived his right to contest the allegations that he violated his probation. But the district court vacated its order and scheduled a revocation hearing immediately after being advised of its error. Because the inadvertent due-process violation was promptly corrected, it does not warrant reversal of the district court’s revocation order.

Second, R.V. claims that the district court violated his due-process rights by keeping him at the County Home School pending the September revocation hearing. R.V. claims that the detention was “illegal” because he was committed without a hearing. But the rules of juvenile-delinquency procedure authorize the detention of a juvenile pending a revocation hearing and only require a hearing to be held within seven days after a juvenile is taken into custody. Minn. R. Juv. Del-inq. P. 15.07, subd. 1 (providing that district court may issue warrant for juvenile’s arrest and detention based on written report demonstrating probable cause that juvenile violated conditions of probation); subd. 4(B) (specifying timing for revocation hearing based on whether juvenile is taken into custody). Thus, because R.V. waived his right to a hearing within seven days after being taken into custody, the district court did not violate his right to due process by placing R.V. in a secure facility pending the September hearing.

R.V. also argues that the district court deprived him of due process by sending him to the County Home School for the predisposition evaluation, without considering his request to be sent to St. Cloud Children’s Home. Even if R.V. had a due-process right to be evaluated at the place of his choice, his claim fails because the record establishes that the district court expressly considered the St. Cloud Children’s Home as a placement option and asked the probation officer to determine whether there were any openings. The district court rejected the St. Cloud Children’s Home only after learning that it was not a feasible option because of transportation issues. Accordingly, the record does not support R.V.’s claim.

Third, R.V. argues that the district court violated his due-process rights by revoking his probation and ordering out-of-home placement based solely on his admission to two status offenses. But the rules of juvenile delinquency procedure do not require the commission of a criminal act before probation may be revoked. Rather, they require only a violation of the terms of the dispositional order, whatever those terms may be. See Minn. R. Juv. Delinq. P. 15.07, subd. 4(D) (“If the court finds by clear and convincing evidence, or the child admits violating the terms of the dispositional order, the court may ... order a disposition pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Section 260B.198.” (emphasis added)). The rules also do not preclude out-of-home placement when the probation revocation is based on a status offense. Out-of-home placement is appropriate when it is necessary; is in the juvenile’s best interests; and is suitable to the juvenile’s needs, irrespective of the nature of the probation violation. Minn. R. Juv. Delinq. P. 15.05, subd. 2(B)(1), (2), (3). Although in some cases policy considerations may require that a juvenile’s probation not be revoked based on a status offense, in other cases the commission of a status offense may suggest that a juvenile “cannot be counted on to avoid antisocial activity” or that revocation is necessary to protect the juvenile’s health and safety. Austin, 295 N.W.2d at 250-51 (quotation omitted). The rules, however, protect juveniles against the reflexive revocation of probation based on an “accumulation of technical violations,” a danger that the Minnesota Supreme Court has recognized in the adult context, by giving juveniles the right to present mitigating circumstances or other reasons why a violation, if proved, should not result in revocation. Id. (quotation omitted); Minn. R. Juv. Delinq. P. 15.07, subd. 4(A).

Fourth, R.V. argues that the revocation violated his right to due process because the conduct he admitted was not a condition of probation, and he did not receive fair notice that status offenses would lead to revocation. But the record belies his contentions. As conditions of probation, the district court required R.V. to obey the law and to complete the gun program. At the October 2003 disposition hearing, the district court elaborated as follows:

You don’t like supervision, obey the law.
Obeying the law also means being in school. You are required to be in school every day, every class, until you are 18, or you’ve got a diploma ....
I’m staying the BETA program, but you should understand that the six-week BETA program is just kind of a backup for the gun program.

At the first revocation hearing in December 2003, the district court also specifically warned R.V. that if he did not cooperate with his mother or if he “[gave] her any sort of grief,” he would probably receive an out-of-home placement. Additionally, R.V. signed a Notification of Conditions of Probation in May 2004, which provided R.V. written notice that, as a condition of probation, he was expected to “attend all classes at [his] assigned school program until the age of 18 unless a formal waiver has been obtained.” The claim that the violations to which he admitted were not conditions of probation, therefore, is unsupported by the record.

R.V. also argues that, even if the violations to which he admitted were conditions of probation, the district court failed to give him prior fair warning that truancy and curfew violations could result in probation revocation and out-of-home placement. But, again, the record demonstrates that, when placing R.V. on probation for the current offense, the district court clearly advised R.V. that he faced out-of-home placement if he violated the conditions of his probation:

But the thing is, if it were not for that gun program, you would be going to the County Home School for a minimum of ten months. That’s what we always did before we had the gun program.
And if you screwed up at the County Home School, you would be going to Red Wing for, I don’t know, fifteen months, and then you would still be on probation, because you’re only 15.
I mean, we’re not disappearing off the face of the earth. So, you need to get (a) if you break the law, you’re not in control of certain parts of your life. If you want to be free, you obey the law, and nobody messes with you. You get to go wherever you want to go, hang with whoever you want to hang with, whatever.
But if you break the law, you lose part of your freedom. And the more you break the law, and the more you violate Court orders, the more freedom you lose.
I could today, easily, send you to the County Home School for ten months. And the reason it would be easy is (a) you have already been shot, and the law is concerned about keeping you alive and (b) you were in the area where you were shot with a big old gun that was loaded.
As [defense counsel] explained, [BETA is] the thing we do if kids are screwing around, before I send you to the County Home School for a year. It’s just kind of a tune-up thing.
So, you shouldn’t be thinking that if you break the law or probation in a significant way, you can’t do anything more than BETA, because that’s not the way it is.

(Emphasis added). Although the district court did not state that truancy and curfew violations could lead to out-of-home placement, it clearly stated that if R.Y. broke the law or the conditions of probation in some significant way, out-of-home placement might follow. The conditions of probation included regular school attendance and compliance with parental rules. Thus, R.V.’s claim that he did not receive notice of the allegations on which the district court based the revocation of his probation is squarely contradicted by the record.

R.V. next argues that the district court violated due process by relying on hearsay allegations in determining the appropriate disposition. Specifically, R.V. argues that the district court improperly considered the probation officer’s disposition-review report, the Beta release summary, the Bar None evaluation, and a report from the County Home School about R.V.’s progress in that program. But R.V.’s claim ignores the express language of the rules and the relevant statute, both of which authorize the district court to consider reliable hearsay in determining the appropriate disposition. See Minn. R. Juv. Delinq. P. 15.04, subd. 2 (providing that at the disposition hearing district court “may receive any information, except privileged communication, that is relevant to the disposition of the case including reliable hearsay and opinions ” (emphasis added)); Minn.Stat. § 260B.193, subd. 2 (2004) (“Before making a disposition in a case ... the court may consider any report or recommendation made by the local social services agency [or] probation officer ... [and] the results of the children’s mental health screening provided in section 260B.157, subdivision 1.” (Emphasis added)).

R.V. contends that the district court’s reliance on the reports was improper because the reports were not part of the record, contained allegations beyond those in the arrest-and-detention notice, and were conjectural. There is no factual basis for these claims. The reports were clearly part of the record and there is no support for R.V.’s claim that the allegations in the reports were “conjectural.” That the reports contained allegations beyond those in the arrest-and-detention notice is to be expected because the reports were submitted to assist the district court in determining the appropriate disposition, not to assist the district court in determining whether R.V. violated probation. The district court stated that, in determining whether R.V. violated probation, it would consider only the allegations in the arrest- and-detention order. There is no indication in the record that the district court failed to do so. Having found that R.V. had violated his probation, the district court was authorized to consider all reliable information relevant to the disposition, including hearsay. R.V., in turn, had a due-process right to call as witnesses and examine under oath the authors of the reports to which he now objects and to otherwise rebut any adverse facts in the reports. Minn. R. Juv. Delinq. P. 15.07, subd. 3(B)(4) & cmt.

Finally, R.V. argues that the district court failed to consider less-restrictive alternatives that would have been appropriate sanctions for status offenses, including Rainbow Bridge, Chisholm Home, Woodland Hills, Stepping Stone, and electronic home monitoring. Even if the district court’s placement choice were a matter of due process, R.V.’s claim would fail because he only specifically requested consideration of Rainbow Bridge and Chisholm Home, which the district court considered and rejected on the record at the July hearing and in its July order.

R V.’s claim that the district court violated his due-process rights in the course of revoking his probation is, therefore, without merit.

II.

R.V. next argues that the district court violated due process by revoking his probation and imposing long-term, out-of-home placement without complying with the three-step analysis set forth in Austin, 295 N.W.2d at 250.

In Austin, the Minnesota Supreme Court ruled that, before probation can be revoked in a criminal case, the district court must (1) designate the specific conditions that were violated, (2) find that the violation was intentional or inexcusable, and (3) find that the need for confinement outweighs the policies favoring probation. Id. The Austin court reasoned that, because the purpose of probation is rehabilitative, “revocation should be used only as a last resort when treatment has failed.” Id. The supreme court also noted that “[t]he decision to revoke cannot be a reflexive reaction to an accumulation of technical violations but requires a showing that the offender’s behavior demonstrates that he or she cannot be counted on to avoid antisocial activity.” Id. at 251 (quotations omitted).

The supreme court extended the application of Austin to extended-jurisdiction-juvenile (EJJ) proceedings in State v. B.Y., reasoning that (1) by requiring a finding that “reasons exist to revoke [a] stay,” the EJJ statute precludes the automatic or reflexive execution of an adult sentence, and (2) the need to balance a probationer’s interest in freedom against the state’s interest in ensuring rehabilitation and public safety is present in EJJ proceedings because “revocation of EJJ probation may result in the execution of an adult sentence.” 659 N.W.2d 763, 768-69 (Minn.2003).

R.V. argues that, because juvenile revocation proceedings are analogous to EJJ revocation proceedings, Austin should apply to juvenile revocation proceedings. But juvenile revocation proceedings are not analogous to adult and EJJ proceedings because juveniles do not face an executed adult sentence upon violating probation. Thus, the concerns that justify the application of Austin to EJJ revocation proceedings do not require the extension of Austin to juvenile revocation proceedings.

Most important, the wholesale adoption of Austin in juvenile revocation proceedings is unnecessary because the rules of juvenile-delinquency procedure encompass the procedural safeguards that Austin guarantees in adult and EJJ proceedings. Indeed, the extension of Austin to juvenile proceedings would not be prudent because the juvenile rules afford non-EJJ juvenile probationers better protection against the reflexive execution of a stayed disposition requiring confinement in a secure facility than Aitstin would afford.

The first Austin factor, for example, requiring the district court to identify the specific conditions that the probationer violated, is encompassed by Minn. R. Juv. Delinq. P. 15.07, subd. 4(D), which requires that, before revoking probation and ordering a disposition, the district court must find by clear and convincing evidence that the juvenile violated the terms of a disposition order. To find a violation of the terms of the disposition order by clear and convincing evidence, the district court must necessarily identify the specific conditions that the probationer violated, as Austin requires. And, as a matter of fundamental fairness, the district court must also ensure that the conditions that the probationer is alleged to have violated were actually imposed and that the juvenile had notice that violation of the conditions of probation could result in revocation. See State v. Ornelas, 675 N.W.2d 74, 79-80 (Minn.2004) (reversing revocation of adult probationer’s probation because condition alleged to have been violated was not imposed by district court); B.Y., 659 N.W.2d at 769 (stating that EJJ revocation must be based on condition found in disposition order).

The second Austin factor requires the district court to find that the violation was intentional or inexcusable. Although the juvenile rules do not require such a finding, they give juveniles the right “to present mitigating circumstances or other reasons why [a probation] violation, if proved, should not result in revocation.” Minn. R. Juv. Delinq. P. 15.07, subd. 4(A). The rules thus afford a juvenile the same protection against the automatic revocation of probation that the second Austin factor seeks to ensure. Because the presumptive consequence of a probation violation in the juvenile setting is not the execution of an adult sentence, the juvenile rules appropriately do not require a specific finding that the probation violation was intentional or inexcusable. In a rehabilitative setting, requiring the district court to revoke probation only upon a finding that a violation was inexcusable would unreasonably limit the district court’s ability to intervene when a violation, although excusable, suggests that the juvenile might be a danger to himself or herself or others or that the juvenile may not be counted on to avoid antisocial behavior. Because, by requiring the district court to consider mitigating circumstances, the juvenile rules sufficiently protect a juvenile in a non-EJJ proceeding against the reflexive revocation of probation while at the same time preserving the discretion the district court must have to intervene on the juvenile’s behalf, the wholesale extension of the second Austin factor to the juvenile proceeding is neither necessary nor appropriate.

The third Austin factor, requiring the district court to find that the need for confinement outweighs the policies favoring probation, is not applicable to juvenile proceedings because confinement in a secure facility is not the presumptive consequence of violating probation in the juvenile setting. See Minn.Stat. § 260B.198 (2004) (listing authorized juvenile dispositions). Rather, it is one of a number of dispositional options available to the district court. Id., subd. 1(d). The rules of juvenile-delinquency procedure nevertheless encompass the balancing of interests that the third Austin factor requires to prevent the reflexive execution of an adult sentence. Indeed, the juvenile rules afford minors greater protection against the reflexive imposition of long-term, out-of-home placement than the third Austin factor would afford.

The juvenile rules require the district court to ensure that a disposition is necessary to restore law-abiding conduct. Minn. R. Juv. Delinq. P. 15.05, subd. 2(B)(1). In determining whether a particular disposition is necessary, the district court must consider the risk to public safety and whether the disposition ordered is the least-restrictive action consistent with the juvenile’s circumstances. Id. A disposition order must contain written findings of fact, setting forth why public safety and the juvenile’s best interests are served by the disposition, what alternative dispositions were recommended, and why the recommended dispositions were rejected. Id., subd. 2(A)(1), (2). When the disposition changes the juvenile’s place of custody, the disposition order must set forth the reasons that public safety and the juvenile are not served by preserving the present custody and why the new placement is suitable to the juvenile’s needs. Id., subd. 2(A)(3). When contemplating out-of-home placement, the district court must consider whether the placement is appropriate to address the juvenile’s needs, keeping in mind that the juvenile’s best interests ordinarily are served by parental custody. Id., subd. 2(B)(3). Thus, the juvenile-delinquency rules not only incorporate the third Austin factor’s balancing requirement, but also afford juveniles greater protection than the third Austin factor would afford.

Based on the foregoing, we conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion by declining to apply the Austin factors when it revoked R.V.’s probation.

III.

R.V. finally argues that the district court failed to make adequate findings in support of its disposition order.

If a district court finds by clear and convincing evidence that a juvenile violated the terms of a disposition order, the district court must order a disposition authorized by Minn.Stat. § 260B.198. “Any order for a disposition authorized under [Minn. Stat. § 260B.198] shall contain written findings of fact to support the disposition ordered” and shall set forth why the disposition serves the juvenile’s best interests and what alternative dispositions the district court considered and the reasons that they were rejected. Minn.Stat. § 260B.198, subd. l(m). Because probation revocation is a disposition authorized under Minn.Stat. § 260B.168, subds. 1(b), 9, a district court must make written findings when revoking probation. The findings are necessary to facilitate meaningful appellate review, to show that the district court considered all of the relevant factors, and to enable the parties to understand the decision. In re the Welfare of N.T.K., 619 N.W.2d 209, 211 (Minn.App.2000).

Similarly, when out-of-home placement is ordered, the district court must make findings as to (1) why this disposition serves public safety, (2) why it is in the juvenile’s best interests, and (3) why the district court rejected recommended alternative dispositions. Minn. R. Juv. Delinq. P. 15.05, subd. 2(A); In re the Welfare of C.A.W., 579 N.W.2d 494, 497-98 (Minn.App.1998). When changing the location of the juvenile’s custody, the district court also must make findings as to (1) why public safety and the juvenile’s best interests are not served by preserving the status quo, and (2) how the program available at the custodial placement serves the juvenile’s needs. Id. The failure to make the required findings constitutes reversible error. N.T.K., 619 N.W.2d at 211-12.

When imposing a disposition, the district court considers whether a particular disposition is necessary to restore law-abiding conduct. Minn. R. Juv. Delinq. P. 15.05, subd. 2(B)(1). In determining whether a particular disposition is necessary, the district court must consider the effect of the disposition on public safety. Id., subd. 2(B)(1)(a). The risk to public safety is measured by the seriousness of the offense, the juvenile’s culpability, the juvenile’s prior record of delinquency, and the juvenile’s programming history. Id.

The district court made no findings as to any of the considerations relevant to public safety. The record contains no mention of the seriousness of the offense or of R.V.’s culpability, prior record of delinquency, or programming history. The district court’s findings are thus insufficient to facilitate meaningful appellate review and to show that the district court considered the effect of its disposition on public safety. Cf. In re the Welfare of J.S.S., 610 N.W.2d 364, 367 (Minn.App.2000) (concluding that findings on juvenile’s prior offenses of truancy and disorderly conduct and on his tendency to re-offend after completing out-of-home placement were sufficient to show why public safety would be served by long-term, residential treatment program). Given that R.V. had not committed new criminal acts, findings explaining why out-of-home placement was necessary to ensure public safety are particularly important.

The district court’s fear that R.V. was headed toward adult certification is insufficient, by itself, to establish that the disposition was necessary to ensure public safety. Without explicit findings addressing evidence supporting the basis for this concern, the mere promise that long-term, out-of-home placement would benefit R.V. by keeping him from being certified as an adult is insufficient to establish that the disposition is necessary. In re the Welfare of L.K.W., 372 N.W.2d 392, 399 (“The promise of benefits in a disposition, that the choice would be good or even best, does not permit an action which is not necessary.”).

Thus, although the district court ordered a disposition that it considered to be in R.V.’s best interests overall, the findings do not address whether the disposition was necessary to restore him to law-abiding conduct and protect public safety.

Rule 15.05 also requires that, in determining whether a particular disposition is necessary, the district court consider and issue findings as to how the disposition serves the juvenile’s best interests. Minn. R. Juv. Delinq. P. 15.05, subd. 2(B)(2). Considerations of best interests do not supersede the requirement that the disposition be necessary. “The promise of benefits in a disposition, or even the suggestion that a particular disposition is best for the child, does not permit a disposition that is not necessary.” Id. “Public policy mandates that the best interests of the child are normally served by parental custody.” Id., subd. 2(B)(3). A placement that is not suited to the juvenile’s actual needs cannot serve the juvenile’s best interests. Id.

The district court found that R.V. needed a highly structured environment because of a “dramatic list of [unresolved] issues” and an emerging antisocial personality. The district court also found that the County Home School “offer[ed] a very stringent, regimented, long-term program that is best suited to help the child rehabilitate himself.” But the district court did not identify specific interests that would be served by out-of-home placement or explain why those interests would be best served by a stringent and regimented long-term program like the County Home School. See J.S.S., 610 N.W.2d at 367 (concluding that findings that juvenile’s best interests “shall be served by an out-of-home placement at this time” and juvenile has “continued to re-offend upon returning to his home from previous out-of-home placement” not sufficient); C.A.W., 579 N.W.2d at 498 (remanding for findings where district court “identif[ied] no interests of the child that are served by or two- or three-week incarceration in a residential facility”). The bare conclusion that the County Home School’s stringent and regimented program was best suited to help R.V. rehabilitate himself is insufficient to satisfy the written-findings requirement. See In re the Welfare of 545 N.W.2d 412, 414-15 (Minn.App.1996) (stating that bare conclusion that child’s best interests require particular disposition is insufficient and finding inadequate statement that “it is in the best interests of the child to be placed in a residential treatment center to address his present personality and psychological disorders [and] outpatient treatment environment shall not meet the needs of the child”).

In determining whether a particular disposition is necessary, the district court must also consider and make findings on proportionality, i.e., whether the disposition is “the least restrictive action consistent with the child’s circumstances.” Minn. R. Juv. Delinq. P. 15.05, subd. 2(B)(1)(b).

The district court rejected R.V.’s request for placement at Chisholm House or the WAVE program, finding that Chisholm House was “better suited for treating younger, less sophisticated children” and that R.V. needed a “very stringent, regimented, long-term program” like the County Home School to rehabilitate himself. The district court also found that R.V. was not amenable to supervised probation in the community, specifically noting his failure to complete the Beta and gun programs. The district court’s findings suggest that, because R.V. continued to violate the conditions of supervised probation in the community, it is now appropriate to try a different disposition in a secure facility. The district court’s findings on alternative dispositions thus are sufficient to satisfy the written-findings requirement.

R.V. claims that the district court failed to consider his recent enrollment in the WAVE alternative school near his house; his willingness to attend Rainbow Bridge; and the possibility of enrolling in the CAMP program, a program that would have allowed him to continue to go to school and be employed. But R.V.’s counsel did not present these alternatives to the district court. R.V.’s July 26, 2004 modification motion suggested only Chisholm House, which the district court considered and rejected. Accordingly, the district court’s findings on alternative dispositions are adequate.

When the disposition changes the juvenile’s place of custody, the district court also is required to consider and make findings on why public safety and the juvenile’s best interests are not served by preserving the status quo. Minn. R. Juv. Delinq. P. 15.05, subd. 2(A)(3)(a). The rule is “a reminder of the preference for placing children in their own home, and it calls for attention to the families of the children.” J.S.S., 610 N.W.2d at 367-68. We have indicated that “[cjorrectional placements cannot occur without evidence and findings reflecting consideration of the child’s familial relationships.” C.A.W., 579 N.W.2d at 499.

The district court found that R.V. was unamenable to supervised probation in the community, noting that he had failed to complete the Beta and gun programs. But the ■ district court did not make findings reflecting that it had considered R.V.’s familial relationships when committing R.V. to the County Home School. The district court incorporated the Bar None evalúation into its order, and the evaluation contains some information about R.V.’s familial relations. But the evaluation is not an adequate substitute for the requisite findings, even though it supports the district court’s implicit determination that out-of-home placement is necessary to return R.V. to law-abiding behavior. See In re the Welfare of J.L.Y., 596 N.W.2d 692, 696 (Minn.App.1999) (stating that despite “the administrative efficiency of [a pre-printed disposition] form and that in many cases the sound reasons for the disposition ordered are on the record [the incorporation of] the entire transcript into the [disposition] order does not satisfy the written-findings requirement”), review granted (Minn. Sept. 28, 1999), appeal dismissed (Minn. Feb. 15, 2000). But see In re the Welfare of D.T.P., 685 N.W.2d 709, 713 (Minn.App.2004) (“If the requisite particularized findings are made on the record and appear in a transcript, it is appropriate for the district court to incorporate those findings by reference into its order.”). The incorporation of the Bar None evaluation into the district court’s order did not effectuate the purposes of written findings, namely, to guarantee that the district court considers the appropriate factors in making a disposition, to enable the parties to understand the district court’s decision, and to facilitate appellate review. See N.T.K., 619 N.W.2d at 211. The findings related to R.V.’s present custody arrangement, therefore, are insufficient to satisfy the requirements of the rule.

When the disposition modifies the juvenile’s place of custody, the district court must also consider and make findings on the “suitability of the placement, taking into account the program of the placement facility and assessment of the child’s actual needs.” Minn. R. Juv. Delinq. P. 15.05, subd. 2(A)(3)(b).

The district court found that R.V. needed a “highly structured environment” because of a “dramatic list of [unresolved] issues” and “the apparent emergence of an anti-social personality.” The district court also found that the County Home School provided the type of “very stringent, regimented, long-term program” R.V. needs to rehabilitate himself and that “placement of at least twelve months is necessary to return the child to law-abiding behavior.”

The district court stated at the disposition hearing that R.V. had chemical-dependency, anger, school-attendance, and family-relationship issues. But the district court did not explain why the County Home School’s program was best suited to address those issues. The district court referred to the stringent and regimented nature of the program but did not describe the program’s therapeutic offerings or explain how the program would address R.V.’s needs. See In re the Welfare of M.A.C., 455 N.W.2d 494, 499 (Minn.App.1990) (reversing disposition when district court “made no findings explaining why Chisholm House would serve appellant’s best interests ... [or] describe[d] the type of treatment provided with Chisholm House or how that treatment would help solve appellant’s problems”); In re the Welfare of M.R.S., 400 N.W.2d 147, 151 (Minn.App.1987) (remanding when district court made no finding as to juvenile’s specific problems and the suitability of placement ordered as a remedy for them); see also N.T.K., 619 N.W.2d at 212 (holding that although findings that present placement failed and placement ordered was the least-restrictive alternative necessary to return appellant to law-abiding behavior “address[ed] some of the [relevant] factors and the evidence may very well ultimately support the disposition, the findings lack the completeness required by statute and rule”). The reason for the district court’s dispositional choice appears to have been the need for a secure facility. The findings, however, do not address how the County Home School program would address R.V.’s therapeutic needs.

The district court’s findings on public safety, the juvenile’s best interests, the adequacy of the present custodial arrangement, and the suitability of the placement ordered are insufficient to satisfy the requirements of Minn.Stat. § 260B.198, subd. l(m) and Minn. R. Juv. Delinq. P. 15.05, subd. 2. Although the evidence may support the disposition ultimately, the findings lack the completeness required to guarantee that the district court considered the relevant factors. The findings are similarly inadequate to permit meaningful appellate review of R.V.’s claim that the district court abused its discretion by ordering long-term, out-of-home placement.

DECISION

The district court did not violate R.V.’s due-process rights in the course of revoking his probation. Nor did the district court err by failing to apply the Austin three-step analysis in revoking R.V.’s probation. But the district court failed to issue sufficient findings to ensure that it considered all the relevant factors and to facilitate appellate review. We, therefore, affirm the district court’s revocation of R.V.’s probation, reverse the disposition, and remand for additional findings addressing the placement ordered.

Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded.