Kenwood woman facing loss of home due to slander, deceit and malfeasance

As a decorated Army medic and former heavy equipment operator, Holly Brown has accomplished many things in her life, but she is especially proud of her credit score. “I’ve never been late on a payment, ever,” she told the Monitor on Feb. 15, 2024.

We were sitting in Ms. Brown’s home on Mississippi Avenue, in the Kenwood neighborhood—a sunny third-story living space with an expansive view, overlooking the UMD campus. Michelle, a paid researcher, sat at the dining table, a large box of files at her elbow.

“I’ve never known anybody to have a credit report like hers,” Michelle agreed. “It’s like a career path of impeccable credibility.”

“Some people I talked to, they’re like, ‘Oh yeah, just file bankruptcy,’—and they’re acting like it’s not a big issue,” said Brown. “For me, my whole life is about being credible and conscientious, and they’ve attacked me to the core of my beliefs. People say, ‘Your credit does not define you as a person,’ and I’m like, ‘It does, because I am credible.’”

Holly Brown is facing the imminent loss of her home in the courts. When the Monitor reviewed her evidence, we discovered that contractors, judges, and attorneys had taken advantage of her all along the way.

A thorough review of exhibits from a recent court case suggests that a local contractor, Les Grumdahl, perjured himself several times.

In his formal decision, without offering any support for his claim, Judge Eric Hylden asserted that Grumdahl was more “credible” than Holly Brown—seemingly persuaded by Grumdahl’s vague testimony and contradictory evidence.

Throughout the ordeal, Holly’s own attorney, Robb Enslin, missed important hearings and court deadlines. Enslin also wrote a letter to the judge blaming his failings on his client. He opted not to share this slanderous document with Holly.

Enslin also attempted to force Holly into deals with which she did not agree. We reviewed hours of recordings where Enslin was berating and belittling Holly; Enslin hadn’t been aware that these conversations were being recorded.

The court proceedings and the combined testimonies of Les Grumdahl, Robb Enslin, and Eric Hylden create an unsavory narrative of a mentally deficient old lady who did nothing but make trouble for good, hard-working citizens—the sort of person, perhaps, who deserved to lose her home due to a mechanic’s lien foreclosure.

As an intelligent, capable woman who was tenaciously fighting for her rights, Holly found the smearing of her character by multiple authoritative men as distressing as the prospect of losing her home.

The nightmare begins

In June of 2020, Holly Brown met with Les Grumdahl, owner of Les Grumdahl Window & Siding, to discuss her home remodeling project. Holly agreed to replace her front door, windows and siding for an approximate cost of $77,000.

Holly gave Grumdahl a $22,000 down payment on June 25, 2020. She also agreed to pay off the remaining balance in two future installments, as the work was completed.

Les had originally told Holly that the job would be completed before winter. As winter approached without work being started, however, it became clear that this deadline was not feasible. At the time, Holly was tending to Dan, a close family friend who was suffering from cancer, and Holly was personally battling leukemia (a grim legacy of her service in the Gulf War). She did not want construction workers coming in and out of her home during the winter, especially during the Covid pandemic. Dan passed away in the early summer of 2021.

Shortly after Les Grumdahl’s crew began renovations on Holly’s house, on June 3, 2021, Holly became concerned about the quality of their work. The crew would show up on some days and, on other days, they wouldn’t, but they expected her to be home when they were on site and ready to work. The hardware the crew installed didn’t seem to be the hardware Holly had ordered. Drafts of air came in from her newly-installed door, and rain entered her home even when her new windows were closed. When Holly communicated her concerns to Grumdahl, he had the crew redo some of the work, but Holly, drawing on her career in construction, believed that much of it remained substandard.

Holly called the state Department of Labor & Industry to register her concerns about Les Grumdahl on June 16, 2021.

Three weeks later, on July 9, when Grumdahl asked Holly for her second payment (an installment in the amount of $25,900), Holly informed him that she would have the money available the following week.

On July 14, 2021, Holly paid Les $16,900 and told him he would receive the remaining $9,000 when the money was transferred to her checking account, within a few days. Les did not seem to be concerned about this. He told Holly that the windows would be finished on the 16th and that his crew would start installing the siding after that.

On July 19, Holly called Les to let him know that his $9,000 check was ready for him to pick up.

On July 21, 2021, according to Holly, Les and two of his employees entered Holly’s home without knocking. Les told her that he was going to redraw the contract. Holly said Les made several comments about what a “bad client” she was. When he left, she was surprised to see that he had left his $9,000 check on her dining table.

The following day, July 22, a large crew arrived at Holly Brown’s home early in the morning and began taking down the scaffolding, even though they hadn’t yet begun her siding installation. When Holly called Les to ask what was happening, Grumdahl told her that he was dropping the job.

On the morning of July 23, Holly called her bank to explain the situation. She learned that it was possible for her to get the $16,900 back from Les by initiating a “charge-back” on her cleared check—meaning that the money would be removed from Grumdahl’s account and returned to Holly’s account. Holly visited her bank later that afternoon to initiate the chargeback by paying a fee and submitting their required form.

On the night of July 23, a heavy thunderstorm passed through the Kenwood neighborhood. Holly left a voicemail message for Les alerting him that her new windows were leaking.

On July 26, Grumdahl’s crew showed up and worked for “a few minutes” to correct the problem. That night, when it rained again, water again came in through the same window. Holly left Les a voicemail message about the recurring problem. She also recorded a video of rain coming in around her new window.

The chargeback of Holly’s $16,900 check was completed that same day—July 26.

On July 27, Les called Holly and told her he wasn’t going to fix the leaking window, because he had looked at his bank account and realized the check for $16,900 was missing.

On Oct. 5, 2021, Holly filed a complaint against Les with the Minnesota Attorney General’s office.

He said the problems [with the construction] were due to problems with my house. He was nasty and he said he was going to rewrite the contract. He was angry because I contacted the MN Dept. of Labor & Industry and he had recently found out about it. Thursday morning, July 22nd, Les’s crew was here to take down the scaffolding and pack up all their equipment and yard sign and leave my job. My check for $16,900 had already cleared but I called the bank and told them what happened and they were able to get that check back for me.

On Nov. 4, 2021, when Les Grumdahl responded to the Attorney General about Holly’s complaint, he described an alternative timeline of events, which he also later referenced in court.

According to Les, he removed the scaffolding and pulled his crew from the job after finding out that Holly’s funds had been returned to her account.

July 13th, 2021, I asked for the second payment of $25,900 … She wrote a check for $16,900 as partial payment for what was due and said she would have the following $9,000 Friday, July 16th, 2021. She would not return my calls except to tell us that a window was leaking. I wondered about this because we had not had any rain for 10 days. We resealed the window flashing and did not hear from her until I called her and asked why the check for $16,900 had been returned … Without her payment and her negative attitude towards paying us, we removed our equipment and filed a mechanic’s lien upon her property …

We were working with Ms. Brown to address her concerns and questions. However, when you promise to pay someone in good faith and revoke payment, we as a contractor have no choice but to cease operations and engage in legal means to obtain what is owed. We also have special order siding and related materials that are not returnable.

Curiously, Les does not specify the date he ordered his workers to remove the scaffolding—only saying that it happened after Holly had taken her money back.

According to Holly, however, Les instructed his crew to remove the scaffolding and leave the job before she initiated the chargeback.

The evidence Grumdahl submitted to the Attorney General supports Holly’s version of events. The exhibit of Holly’s $16,900 check includes a few handwritten notes. Two of these—“chargeback” and “07-26-21”—confirm that the money was returned to Holly’s account several days after the scaffolding had been removed.

Also evident in Grumdahl’s response to the Attorney General is a sample of the smearing Holly endured since she hired Grumdahl. Les provided no evidence when he implied Holly was lying: “I wondered about [Holly’s leaking window claim] because we had not had any rain for 10 days.”

A review of historical weather reports from the days in question, however—July 23 and July 26, 2021—confirms that thunderstorms passed through Duluth on both nights.

Pro se

On Jan. 10, 2022, Holly received a legal summons from Les Grumdahl’s attorney, Matthew Hanka, notifying her that she was being sued for breach of contract. The summons also mentioned that Grumdahl was hoping to enforce a mechanic’s lien foreclosure in the amount of $20,391.

People who are sued in Minnesota have 21 days to respond to the Complaint with an Answer, which meant that Holly had until Jan 31, 2022, to respond.

Specifically, the Complaint stated:

You are hereby summoned and required to answer the Complaint in the above-entitled action, which Complaint has been filed in the office of the Court Administrator of the above-named court, and to file your answer to the Complaint in the office of the Court Administrator of the above-named court within twenty-one (21) days after the service of this Summons against you …

Holly immediately sought representation, but had difficulty finding any attorney to represent her. “I called upwards of 100 attorneys, and 90 percent of them said they could not take my case, because it was a conflict of interest, because they had worked for Les at one point,” she told the Monitor. “There were a couple that said it wasn’t their thing, or they didn’t have time … I even paid people to look at my stuff … Nobody would take it.”

With no alternative, Holly decided to represent herself—an arrangement in the legal world referred to as going “pro se.”

Holly responded to the Complaint by composing a letter denying the allegations and requesting an extension on the case so she could secure counsel.

On Jan. 31, 2022, Holly visited the Court Administrator’s Office to turn in her Answer, but was told the Administrator’s Office could not accept it, because no case number had been assigned to the Complaint. The administrator advised Holly to provide her Answer to the opposing party’s counsel.

Holly personally hand-delivered her Answer to the Fryberger law firm on Jan. 31. She also sent the Answer to Hanka via certified mail on Jan. 31.

Mr. Hanka appeared to have accepted Holly’s pro se representation, as he began communicating with her about the case, just as he would with any attorney. He did not, however, file Holly’s Answer with the court.

On April 8, 2022, Hanka participated in a telephone scheduling conference with Holly and Judge David Johnson. Holly told the judge she hadn’t found an attorney and requested an extension to secure one.

While she sought legal represenation, Holly was also diligently gathering evidence for her case. When she found herself becoming inundated by the documentation, she hired Michelle, a professional researcher, to help organize it all.

On June 27, 2022, Matt Hanka sent Holly an Interrogatories Request, consisting of written questions related to matters relevant to the case. Holly replied to Hanka a month later, on July 27, and requested an extension.

Enslin the godsend

After searching for months, Holly finally retained an attorney in November of 2022: Robb Enslin, with Trial Group North. Mr. Enslin listened attentively to Holly’s concerns and assured her that he could help.

As she left Enslin’s office, after signing the contract on Nov. 15, 2022, Holly felt more optimistic and relieved than she had in a long time. Holly says that she initially considered Enslin a “godsend.”

At Enslin’s request, Holly and Michelle gave him all of the documentation they had been organizing—17 folders of documents in a large portable file box. They included anything that might be useful—even a folder of stray notes related to the case, which they’d found lying around the house.

“My attorney says, ‘Okay, Holly, you can relax now’—because I was so stressed out and I’d been working so hard with Michelle … So we turned all of that in … and the attorney said he’s taking care of everything,” Holly said.

A pre-trial Zoom hearing for the case was scheduled on Jan. 26, 2023. Mr. Enslin told Holly that she did not need to show up for the hearing, because he intended to ask the court for a continuance.

Thus, when Jan. 26 arrived, Holly was not at the meeting.

Neither was Mr. Enslin.

A transcript of the hearing describes Attorney Matt Hanka and Judge Eric Hylden speculating about what was going on.

Judge Eric Hylden: We’re maybe five minutes past the witching hour here, but have you heard anything from Ms. Brown?

Matt Hanka: No. So far as I’m aware, there’s no formal Answer that’s been filed … Interestingly, I did have a couple conversations over the past month and a half or so with Robb Enslin … He said he was representing [Holly Brown] and was planning to file something. I talked to him as recently as a week and a half ago. I haven’t seen anything. I served him with our pre-trial submissions. No response. I’m not really sure what’s going on there. I haven’t been comfortable communicating with Ms. Brown since I talked to Mr. Enslin. You know, I don’t really want to waste the Court’s time with a trial. Maybe we file a motion for default at this point. I’m kind of looking for the Court’s guidance on that …

Hylden: What I’m inclined to do is have both of us show live in person for a trial on Feb. 7 at 9 in the morning, and we’ll either have Ms. Brown and/or Mr. Enslin, and if we do, then we can move forward with the trial … In the meantime, perhaps you hear from Mr. Enslin and he says, oh, I’ve been meaning to send you this stipulation to settle the case.

Hanka: That would be nice.

Enslin also failed to submit Holly’s evidence to the court, as he had promised her he would. As a result, the judge indicated that he was disinclined to allow any of Holly’s evidence to be introduced. “From the Court’s perspective, if someone has not responded to discovery … they can’t use any information like that at trial,” he told Hanka.

After Holly and Michelle had spent 15 months and an estimated 800 hours assembling their evidence, Enslin’s inaction now prevented any of it from being used.

Robb Enslin did not tell Holly that he had missed the pre-trial hearing or that he had failed to submit her evidence.

Unaware that the gears of the justice system had begun turning against her, Holly continued to feel optimistic about the case.

Trial and error

A trial was scheduled for Feb. 7, 2023.

On Feb. 2, 2023—ten full weeks after being retained by Holly—Robb Enslin filed his first communication with the court: a Notice of Appearance on behalf of Holly Brown. 

Enslin also sent the judge a letter, in which he explained his tardiness by slandering Holly Brown and her researcher.

Dear Judge Hylden:

In regard to the above referenced case … I have been retained to represent Holly Brown in this matter. I apologize for appearing at this late stage. Ms. Brown and I only became acquainted at the end of November 2022. She was appearing pro se at that point, and had a “friend”—not an attorney—who had been giving her extensive advice regarding her pro se representation. I believe this resulted in Ms. Brown’s failure to properly answer the Complaint, respond to discovery, or otherwise prosecute her defense, as well as leading her down several legal paths I believe were unsound.

Ms. Brown, a military veteran, has Leukemia and requires daily treatment. The treatments have an impact on her cognitive abilities, and she is unable to meet to discuss her case most mornings following her treatment and is often too unwell to meet at all. This has resulted in several missed and canceled appointments between the two of us to discuss her case. Communication has been difficult …

Again, apologizing for the late hour. We are preparing to interpose a Verified Answer and Counterclaim in this matter. At this point, we request a conference with your Honor to discuss new dates and deadlines in this matter, if your Honor will allow it …

Yours very truly,

Robb P. Enslin

Enslin did not inform Holly that he had submitted this letter to the judge.

Rather than vigorously arguing that Holly’s Answer, which she had served in good faith to the Fryberger office on Jan. 31, be accepted by the court, Enslin disparaged Holly’s “failure” to follow proper procedure and implied that an impaired mental capacity was to blame.

The Monitor conducted more than 12 hours of interviews with Holly Brown and Michelle since December of 2023. We saw no reason to believe Michelle was “giving [Holly] extensive advice regarding her pro se representation” or “leading her down … legal paths” of any sort.

Rather, at a time when no one else was willing to help, Michelle helped Holly research her case and keep her evidence organized. In addition to her professional duties, Michelle also provided Holly with moral and emotional support.

Regarding Holly Brown’s “cognitive abilities,” we never had any reason to doubt Holly’s communication or reasoning abilities during our conversations. The fact that Holly is suffering from leukemia makes the enormous amount of work and energy she put into her case even more impressive.

Furthermore, the evidence we reviewed does not support Enslin’s claim that communicating with Holly was “difficult.” Holly’s phone records from November 2022 to February 2023 prove that Holly called Robb eight times and that Robb called Holly three times. Holly disputes Enslin’s claim that there were “several missed and canceled appointments.” She recalls one occasion when she rescheduled an appointment for the following day, which Rob canceled due to illness.

On Friday, Feb. 3, 2023, Judge Hylden held a private conference on the status of the case with Enslin and Hanka. Holly was not present.

When Enslin reported back to Holly, he told her that she would only need to make a brief appearance on Feb. 7, because there would be no trial. “He says to me, ‘We’re not having a trial on Tuesday. You just gotta show up for a few minutes. We’re getting a continuance.’ I said, ‘Well, shouldn’t I be prepared?’ ‘No, you don’t need to be prepared. We’re getting a continuance.’”

However, when Holly arrived at the courtroom on Feb. 7, she found that Enslin had misled her. The judge rejected Enslin’s request for a continuance and the trial commenced.

In Attorney Hanka’s opening remarks, he indicated to the judge that he would have been more inclined to agree to a continuance if Enslin had raised the issue earlier.

Matt Hanka: I guess our first request would be to strike the Answer and Counterclaim … This is about, you know, three months after I started talking with Mr. Enslin. I was a little more apt to potentially continue the case back then, but at this point, I think my client is clearly prejudiced by receiving an Answer and Counterclaim the day before our trial.

In response, Enslin smeared his client before the court.

Robb Enslin: Judge, as I explained in my correspondence with you last week, Mr. Hanka and I did start talking in, I think it was early December. There have been several communications issues between myself and my client … Now, I understand this is very late in the proceeding. Ms. Brown was incorrect in her attempt to Answer and was incorrectly under the belief that she had answered the Complaint prior to this … I understand the lateness of this, and I don’t have any other explanation except to say I know Ms. Brown made many attempts to find counsel over the last year. She has had several health issues, her father died over the summer, which resulted in many delays … However, we’ve agreed to take on her representation and we feel a continuance is warranted, so that she may present both her defense and gather evidence for her counterclaim … As far as the lateness goes, I don’t have any other explanation than what I’ve said so far.

Despite the fact that Enslin said he had been talking with Hanka since “early December,” he offered no explanation for why he had failed to attend required hearings or communicate with the court for ten weeks. Why did Enslin wait until five days before trial to file a Notice of Appearance? Holly certainly did not prevent him from doing so.

Instead of asking this of the attorney, Judge Hylden accepted Enslin’s explanation at face value. “You know, if there was a problem with getting counsel, with producing documents, things like that, it could well have been taken care of months ago,” the judge declared, aiming his criticism at Holly rather than Enslin. “Continuance requests could have been taken care of months ago … It’s just too late, at this point, to say, okay, now we want to start over. And I understand that everyone has problems. I’m very sorry to hear about your father and things like that, but we’re all here ready to go today, and to file an Answer and Counterclaim as of yesterday is just too late.”

Enslin responded by backhanding Holly once again.

Enslin: Your Honor, as I’ve explained, I’ve done everything I could to expedite this matter as much as possible … I think the effort she made to attempt to find counsel, to try to understand the legal process, and try to participate as best as possible warrants something from the Court. We produced [Holly’s evidence] right after you said it needed to be produced as quickly as possible, on Friday afternoon. We got everything out on Monday morning as quickly as possible …

Hylden: Here’s my concern: If 400 pages [of evidence] was produced that quickly, it existed somewhere before last Friday.

It did. Holly gave the box of files to Enslin in November, with the understanding that he would submit it to the court. During his remarks, Enslin withheld this minor fact from the judge.

After ruling against Holly’s Answer and evidence, Judge Hylden added the following:

Hylden: We are here for trial, and without an Answer, Counterclaim, things like that, I believe Mr. Hanka does have to prove up … a breach of contract—here are the terms of the contract, here is how it was breached, and here are the damages. So that will move forward. But I’m guessing that part isn’t going to take us much time here. And so … the bulk of the time, I imagine, is going to be spent on the damages aspect … What I would like to do right now is take a break … and I would like all the parties and counsel to discuss amongst themselves, given the Court’s rulings on what’s going to happen today, [to see if] there [is] a way to get the case settled.

The judge paused the trial and both Hanka and Enslin disappeared into a back room. According to Holly, when Enslin returned, he told her, “You’ve already lost, so I highly recommend that you settle, because I don’t want to try this case. They want $48,000 to settle this.”

From the very beginning, Holly had been intent on seeing the matter through to trial. Because she had never asked Enslin to negotiate a settlement, she indignantly refused the offer.

The breach of contract

Les Grumdahl contended that Holly had breached the contract by stopping payment on her $16,900 check. Grumdahl testified that he ordered his crew to remove the scaffolding and leave the job after he realized the money had been removed from his account.

Grumdahl: Exhibit 10 is a check from Holly Brown for $16,900 …

Hanka: And so what happened with that payment?

Grumdahl: I’m going from memory, but I believe it was like on a Monday or so, or Tuesday, that I got the check from her. We then deposited it, and the following Friday morning, my bookkeeper advised me that the check had been returned for the $16,900.

Hanka: Do you know why?

Grumdahl: At that particular moment, no, but I did ask her about it, of course—called her up and said, “What’s going on?” And she says, “I’m not going to pay you,” was basically her response …

Hanka: So what happened next?

Grumdahl: We had left quite a bit of the scaffold material up … [and] we took that down.

Hanka: And why did you do that?

Grumdahl: Because I didn’t get paid.

Holly testified that it was Grumdahl who had breached the contract, when he removed the scaffolding and told her he was quitting the job. She said that this was the reason she had initiated the chargeback on the check.

Unprepared for trial and unable to reference her own exhibits, Holly was flustered on the stand. Her testimony was a bit scattered; she apologized to the court more than once because of this.

True to form, Enslin failed to help Holly in any way. If he had focused on the exhibits at hand, he would have realized that Grumdahl’s own evidence supported Holly’s testimony and timeline.

Les claimed that he pulled his crew from the job after discovering that the funds were missing, and that the full amount had been returned to Holly’s account.

The “Overview of Account” which Les provided to the court showed that the $16,900 was removed from Grumdahl’s account on July 26, 2021. The signed mechanic’s lien, also provided to the court by Grumdahl, stated that his crew’s last day on the job was July 23, 2021—three days prior.

A photocopy of Holly’s $16,900 check, also introduced by Grumdahl as evidence, includes hand-written notations—“Chargeback” and “07-26-21”—further confirming that the job ended three days before the chargeback was processed.

None of Grumdahl’s evidence supports the claim that Holly recouped her funds before their scaffolding was removed from the job site.

Les also claimed a loss of $15,277 for custom siding which he was no longer able to use. As evidence, he provided an “invoice” for the siding to the court. Upon closer inspection, the exhibit was a sales order acknowledgement that included 12 back-ordered items, and not an invoice. Invoices are generally created when the ordered items have been shipped. There was nothing noted on the sales order to indicate that a payment had been made.  

The trial ended in Grumdahl’s favor, without anyone highlighting these crucial facts.

Hylden’s decision

In Judge Hylden’s decision, issued on March 17, 2023, he began by stating the following:

This matter was filed with the court on February 1, 2022. On April 8, 2022, the Court held a telephone scheduling conference, attended by Attorney Hanka and Ms. Brown. Ms. Brown appeared on her own, but seemed confused about whether she needed a lawyer, or needed to prepare an Answer to the Complaint, or perhaps could get the case settled. The Court encouraged Ms. Brown to retain a lawyer, as it may help her decide whether to settle the case or defend it at trial.

Judge Hylden had not been present at the April 8th meeting; the presiding officer was Judge David Johnson. Exactly how Hylden determined Holly had “seemed confused” is not clear. According to Holly, “There was no confusion. I told Judge Johnson that I was trying to find an attorney.”

Judge Hylden continued:

Pursuant to the scheduling order, a pre-trial was held on January 26, 2023. Attorney Hanka attended remotely, and Ms. Brown did not appear … Attorney Hanka noted that he had never filed a default motion, as he wanted to give Ms. Brown the opportunity to retain counsel or get the case settled, but she had done neither.

Robb Enslin had instructed Holly not to attend the Jan. 26 meeting, which he had then failed to attend himself.

On February 2, 2023, Mr. Enslin filed a notice of appearance and, by letter, requested a continuance of the trial. Attorney Enslin indicated that he had originally met with Ms. Brown in November of 2022, but communication was difficult, and he was not actually retained until just before filing his notice of appearance. The Court declined to grant a continuance.

Robb Enslin had been retained by Holly Brown on Nov. 15, 2022. In his letter to the judge, Enslin was vague about when he had been retained, but he did not tell the court he had been retained “just before filing his notice of appearance.” How Judge Hylden derived that information is unknown.

In the section of Judge Hylden’s order entitled “STATEMENT OF FACT,” the judge wrote:

1. Les Grumdahl testified on behalf of his company, Les Grumdahl Window and Siding, LLC, and was a credible witness throughout.

2. Defendant Holly Brown testified on her own behalf. Ms. Brown was less credible concerning pertinent facts of the case …

9. Ms. Brown testified that she stopped payment on the check because Mr. Grumdahl had told her he wouldn’t work on the job anymore. Mr. Grumdahl testified that they did not stop working on the job until after Ms. Brown’s check had bounced and she had said that she wouldn’t pay anymore. The Court accepts as credible Mr. Grumdahl’s testimony on this critical fact and does not accept Ms. Brown’s testimony …

11. Mr. Grumdahl also submitted an invoice from the siding supplier in the amount of $15,276.55. Plaintiff has been unable to re-use that siding, and it can only be installed with his own machine, or it voids the warranty …

14. Plaintiff is thus entitled to recover a … total money judgment in Plaintiff’s favor of $60,249.05.

Hylden’s assertion that Holly’s check had “bounced” implied that she didn’t have sufficient funds in her account to cover it. The evidence before the court made it clear that Holly had the funds. It is unknown how Hylden derived this particular “fact.”

It is also unclear how Hylden confused a sales order acknowledgement for an “invoice.”

Hylden also failed to elaborate on why he considered Grumdahl more credible than Holly. If he had properly inspected the evidence on hand, he would have noticed that Holly’s cleared check, Grumdahl’s “Overview of Account,” and the job dates on the mechanic’s lien all supported Holly’s (not Grumdahl’s) timeline of events and testimony.

Hylden ended his order with a parting shot at Holly.

Defendant tried to claim that it was Plaintiff who breached the contract, but the Court did not find her testimony on this subject credible.

It is unknown what Judge Hylden was thinking when he slammed down his gavel that day. Perhaps he was hypnotized by Les’s spectacular credibility.

If Holly is unable to pay the amount in Hylden’s judgment, Les Grumdahl plans to foreclose on his mechanic’s lien and she will lose her home.

Enslin the gaslighter

Following her trial, Holly decided she would be appealing the court’s decision. To begin preparing, she and Michelle visited the courthouse to retrieve whatever documentation they could. 

As they reviewed the public file, they were dismayed to discover that Enslin had filed nothing with the court between Nov. 15, 2022 and Feb. 2, 2023. They were also shocked to see that Enslin had missed the Jan. 26 pre-trial hearing, and mortified when they read Enslin’s letter to Judge Hylden, blaming Holly’s “cognitive abilities” for his own actions. This was the first time they were aware that the letter existed.

On March 21, 2023, when Holly called Enslin for an explanation, she recorded the conversation.

HB: So I was reading … [and] it says: “Pursuant to the scheduling order, a pre-trial was held on Jan. 26, 2023. Attorney Hanka attended remotely and Ms. Brown did not appear.” Well, you told me that I really didn’t need to appear for this, because there wasn’t a lot of important things going on. But, according to this, it says that at that hearing, Attorney Hanka said this case had not settled, but that they knew Ms. Brown was interested in a continuance of the trial date, as she had been trying to retain a lawyer, Mr. Enslin, to represent her interests.

So it basically looks like you didn’t go to that?

RE: [deep sigh] No, I didn’t.

HB: I wish I would have known that, because if I didn’t think you were going to go, I would have gone. You know, you said you were going to go to that and I didn’t really need to go. What happened?

RE: Well [sighs], it was…it was my fault. I should have gone. I was hoping that you would be willing to accept a settlement, and that’s it. I don’t have any other excuse.

Enslin had no other excuse—no explanation for why he had missed a crucial hearing and failed to tell his client about it. He had no explanation for why he hoped she would “accept a settlement.” She had always been prepared to go to trial, even before retaining Enslin.

HB: I retained you on Nov. 15 of 2022. That’s when I signed those papers … and gave you that bin with all the [evidence] in it, and you said … you were going to try to get my papers in right away and apply for a continuance. I was under the impression, from our conversation, that you were going to do that very quickly. But it says here that you didn’t even really tell anybody you were my lawyer. You didn’t do the certificate of representation … You know, I told you how stressed out I was and how worried I was, and you said, you know, “No need to worry now. I got this under control.” And, I don’t know, I don’t understand why that happened, you know?

RE: That’s fair.

That was the extent of Enslin taking responsibility for deceiving and failing her for months—acknowledging that Holly had a fair point. He then changed gears.

HB: Well, you should have let me know that, so I wasn’t just sitting back thinking you’re taking care of it. I would have found another attorney that would have done it. I mean, you could have just told me you didn’t want to do it and gave me my money back and I could have found somebody else. But here I sat, thinking it was all getting taken care of. Now they’re trying to take my home.

RE: Yeah, I delayed a few weeks when I should not have. I don’t think that made any difference, and I don’t think the judge believed your testimony—which is what the judge said in the Order.

HB: Well, he didn’t believe it, but he didn’t also have any evidence to back up what I said, and if I would have got it turned in sooner, they would have at least got to look at the evidence, and I didn’t—

RE: I don’t know that at all, Holly, because you had already missed the deadline to Answer.

Again, Holly had Answered the Complaint in good faith, with her letter to Hanka. Regardless, if Enslin thought she had failed to Answer correctly, his job, as her attorney, was to do everything in his power to ensure an appropriate Answer did get filed. Timelines can be extended at the discretion of judges. Instead, Enslin had done nothing, and it was somehow all Holly’s fault.

HB: If I would have known you weren’t going to turn [my evidence] in, I would have just turned it in, even though it wasn’t perfect, because at least something would have been turned in.

RE: I…I don’t think that there’s…I, I have no idea if the judge would have accepted any of it or if anything would have been any different …

HB: So you sabotaged me, huh?

RE: Holly, do you really think that?

HB: Yes.

RE: Why?

HB: Because this is ridiculous. This is a gross injustice … I got preyed upon, and I think [Les] felt, because I’m not a healthy person, that he thought I didn’t have the energy to fight him, but you know what? I surprised him, because I am not going to just let this go.

RE: I’m…I’m really hurt that you think that I sabotaged you.

On Feb. 24, 2023, Holly and Michelle visited Robb Enslin at his downtown office. Their conversation, which lasted more than two hours, was recorded in full. Enslin repeatedly accused Holly of “missing every single deadline” and misrepresenting the facts of the case to him. He did not explain why he had failed to do any work whatsoever until the eleventh hour.

Coming across slightly unhinged, Enslin didn’t appear to be in Holly’s corner at all.

RE: The very first thing you must submit to the court, before the court will allow you to submit anything else, is an Answer.

M: So how come we didn’t file an Answer in November, when you were originally going to ask for an extension?

RE: Because I strongly disagreed with what you wanted to make in your counterclaims, and we were discussing it.

M: Okay, but that was just, like—

RE: Okay, what are you guys gettin’ at? What are you gettin’ at here? Are you gonna sue me?

HB: No, I didn’t say we were going to sue you.

RE: Well, what are we talking about? Are you gonna sue me?

HB: We just are asking questions.

RE: No, I think there’s something else going on, and I feel like you’re both attacking me.

HB: No, we’re not attacking you.

M: It’s interesting that you feel attacked, because we’re pissed, and I think one thing is…

RE: So … you are attacking me, right?

M: We’re trying not to attack, Robb. What we’re trying to say, if you would allow me to explain, is that in this brief, I feel it would be necessary to take some accountability for not turning anything in or responding to anything, at any point, until three days before trial.

RE: You had already missed every single deadline and did not file an Answer.

M: But you had plenty of time to file an Answer.

RE: I did not have plenty of time to file an Answer. You had missed it by eight months.

M: Then why did we even do anything?

RE: I did everything I could!

M: There was nothing that was done. You filed an appearance on the Thursday before the hearing.

RE: You didn’t file an Answer. I couldn’t file anything else until you filed an Answer.

M: Okay, how come we didn’t file an Answer right away?

RE: Okay, are you gonna sue me? Because I don’t need to keep representing you if you’re gonna sue me.

M: We’re asking questions.

RE: You want me to change history?

M: I want you to answer the questions and not ask questions back.

RE: I don’t care what you want! You’re not my client!

M: I am with Holly.

RE: I don’t care!

M: I understand you don’t care …

RE: So what are you talking about?

M: We’re talking about we would like you to take some accountability in that brief, instead of blaming Holly entirely.

RE: You want me to say what in the brief?

M: State corrections in this letter you wrote to the judge, which you didn’t share with Holly because it’s pretty much just blaming her entirely for the failure of any documentation being turned in …

RE: I am not going to say that I screwed anything up, because I think you guys came to me after you had missed every deadline and slapped this stuff down and said, “We need you to fix everything, and, by the way, we don’t have any money.”

M: You said: “I don’t ask for money until I’ve won.” You said: “You guys can take a breath of fresh air, because—”

RE: I can’t drop everything. I have many, many other clients. I am extremely busy. I realize that you wanted me to drop everything. It’s not possible.

M: Apply that to her situation. What has she done but try?

HB: I did try really hard. I called attorney after attorney after attorney, and, like I said, we were very grateful and relieved and happy when we found you …

RE: I think the problem is that I get a different message from Michelle. Very different. It is clear to me that Michelle is unhappy with how I did this, and she is bringing this out of you.

M: I don’t think that Holly’s that manipulated. I think she’s scared.

RE: I do! I do. I absolutely do.

M: I know you do, and I think that’s why you’re angry when I’m here.

RE: Yeah.

M: Because it’s not easy to gaslight her.

RE: I am not gaslighting anybody.

The “siding invoice”

Unlike Judge Hylden, Holly and Michelle refused to accept everything they were spoon-fed at the trial; they checked the facts.

During the trial, Les Grumdahl testified, under oath, that he had ordered $15,277 worth of siding for Holly’s house, which he was now unable to use. When Judge Hylden awarded damages, he included this amount in his judgment.

To support his claim, Grumdahl provided the court with a document he’d misleadingly labeled “Siding Invoice.” Upon examination, Holly and Michelle found that it was not an invoice, but a sales order acknowledgement.

A total due of $15,276.55 was listed on the last page of the document, but there was no reason to believe that Grumdahl had paid the vendor for any of the listed items—especially since 12 of them had been on back order when the document was created. 

On Feb. 28, 2023, in an attempt to confirm that Grumdahl had paid for her custom siding, Holly pulled out her recorder once again and called Beacon, the supplier, directly. When the Beacon representative looked up the sales order acknowledgement number provided by Holly, she was unable to locate an invoice for the referenced sales order.

The Beacon representative spent several minutes investigating the matter. After confirming that Holly’s items hadn’t been transferred to a different sales order, the Beacon representative stated that it didn’t look like any of the listed items had ever been shipped to Grumdahl—meaning that Beacon had never been paid for them.

“They haven’t been invoiced for it—period. That I can tell you,” the Beacon representative told Holly, with finality.   

Grumdahl Window & Smearing

On Feb. 20, 2024, John Ramos and Monitor Reporter Lauren Eckhoff visited the headquarters of Les Grumdahl Window & Siding, on McQuade Road, just off the Highway 61 expressway. Entering the display room, the reporters approached a man sitting at the service desk.

After being informed that Les Grumdahl was out of town and would not be back that day, Ramos told the man that the Monitor was planning to publish a story on the case of Holly Brown, which would include mention of Les Grumdahl’s apparent perjury. The man replied, “I doubt that happens.”

Upon being assured by Ramos that it would happen, the man replied, “Holly Brown is a lady that, mentally, has problems.”

If a Les Grumdahl employee felt comfortable saying this to a complete stranger who had just walked into his office, one can only imagine what was being said about Holly Brown behind closed doors.

Responses of Hylden, Grumdahl, and Enslin

As with all investigations, the Monitor has endeavored to lay out the facts as we understand them. During this investigation, we made numerous attempts to reach the parties involved for comment.

Shortly after botching Holly’s case, Robb Enslin left Trial Group North and accepted a position in the office of the Duluth City Attorney. The Monitor visited City Hall twice in person, leaving messages for Mr. Enslin at the Attorney’s Office. We also called Mr. Enslin several times, leaving him a voicemail message each time. Sections of this article were also emailed to Enslin as they were completed, and he was invited to comment each time. We received no response from Mr. Enslin.

In addition to visiting Les Grumdahl’s headquarters on Feb. 20, we called Mr. Grumdahl twice, leaving him voicemail messages both times. Mr. Grumdahl called us back on Feb. 29 and stated that he was not going to comment on pending litigation. He also told us to direct further questions to him through his attorney, Matt Hanka.

The Monitor emailed Matt Hanka several questions for Mr. Grumdahl. Hanka responded on March 1: “My client was advised of your questions and will not comment because this matter involves ongoing litigation.”

On March 2, the Monitor emailed Judge Eric Hylden, via the court’s Director of Public Affairs, Kim Pleticha. We asked how Hylden was able to reach the conclusions he did in the Holly Brown case, which were not supported by the evidence. As of press time, Hylden has not responded.

If any new evidence comes across our desk, contradictory or otherwise, we will publish an update.

Holly Brown has retained new representation, Attorney Bill Paul. The next hearing in her appeal is scheduled for Wednesday, March 6, at 10:00 a.m., via Zoom.

There have been new developments in this story. The latest article may be found here.

Cover photo: Les Grumdahl, Eric Hylden, and Robb P. Enslin. Source: Fair use internet images