CONSTITUTIONAL LAW
Eminent domain

Geraldine Tyler owned a condominium in Hennepin County that accumulated about $15,000 in unpaid real estate taxes along with interest and penalties. Hennepin County seized the condo, selling it for $40,000 and retaining the $25,000 surplus. Tyler filed suit, alleging the county had unconstitutionally retained the excess value of her home above her tax debt in violation of the takings clause of the Fifth Amendment and the excessive fines clause of the Eighth Amendment. The district court dismissed the suit for failure to state a claim, and the Eighth Circuit affirmed. The U.S. Supreme Court unanimously reversed the Eighth Circuit’s decision, finding Tyler plausibly alleged a taking under the Fifth Amendment, and ruling a taxpayer is entitled to the surplus in excess of a debt owed. The Supreme Court cited both historical and current principles, and noted Minnesota law also recognizes this principle in the context of collecting other debts and taxes. The Court rejected the county’s claim Tyler had no interest in the surplus because she constructively abandoned her home by failing to pay her taxes, noting Minnesota’s forfeiture scheme is not about abandonment and gives no weight to a taxpayer’s use of the property.

Tyler v. Hennepin County, Minnesota, 22-166, 2023 WL 3632754 (2023).

MARKETABLE TITLE ACT
Public easements

Timothy D. Moratzka, trustee of the Nancy L. Mayen Residual Trust, sought to register title to land (clarify its ownership and any restrictions on its use) that included an undeveloped road dedicated to public use by plat over 100 years ago. The county claimed the public could use this strip of land, which is essentially a beach, because a former owner of the property had dedicated it to public use forever through a recorded plat as authorized under state law. Moratzka argued any public interest in the disputed land had been abandoned under the provisions of the state Marketable Title Act (MTA). The act generally provides that no property interest can “be asserted against a claim of title based on a source of title unless the interest is preserved by filing a notice within 40 years of the creation of the interest.”

The district court ruled in Moratzka’s favor, concluding the public easement was abandoned under the MTA because the interest was not recorded within 40 years after its dedication. The Minnesota Court of Appeals affirmed the district court’s decision, and ruled the MTA applies to land dedicated by plat to public use and extinguishes any public interest not properly recorded under the MTA.

The Minnesota Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeals’ decision, finding the MTA does not operate to extinguish public interests properly dedicated by plat. The Supreme Court found the concern over burdensome title searches that prompted the creation of the MTA is simply not implicated by recorded, publicly available plats. The Supreme Court also noted the public interest was also particularly strong in this case, considering the consequences of upsetting well-settled expectations of local government that would result by holding the MTA can extinguish the public’s right to platted accesses.

In the Matter of Moratzka, Tr. of Nancy L. Mayen Residual Tr., 988 N.W.2d 42 (Minn. 2023). Note: The League filed an amicus brief in support of Itasca County and the Department of Natural Resources.

ELECTION LAW
Ballot question language

The City of Bloomington is a home-rule charter city organized under the Minnesota Constitution. The city’s charter allows residents to propose charter amendments by petition. In the spring of 2022, city residents started the petition process to amend the charter to repeal the use of ranked choice voting in the city. After the petition was submitted to the city clerk, the City Council unanimously rejected the entire proposed amendment, reasoning that one section was unconstitutional.

The district court, finding the provision at issue was integral to the purposes of the proposed charter amendment, denied the petition. The Minnesota Supreme Court affirmed the district court’s decision, concluding that an unconstitutional provision in a proposed charter amendment is not severable after signature collection but before presentation to voters, when severing the unconstitutional provision would deprive the amendment of its efficacy or strength, and it could not be ascertained whether signers of the petition would have wanted the remainder to proceed without the unconstitutional portion.

Kranz v. City of Bloomington, A22-1190, 2023 WL 3606470 (Minn. 2023). Note: The League filed an amicus brief in Bloomington’s support.

LAND USE LAW
Abatement

Thomas and Timothy Pawliks own property in Circle Pines that was at a site of a former bar. The Pawliks approached the City of Circle Pines in 2011 regarding redevelopment and in 2018 demolished the existing building on the property. They covered the remaining basement with plywood and erected snow fencing around the property. In July 2022, the city sent a nuisance abatement letter to only one of the Pawliks listed as the sole owner of the property. The letter directed him to “obtain a demolition permit and ensure the property is cleared of all remnants of the structure that previously was located on the premises,” including “demolition of the basement, removal of all concrete, rebar, wood, brick, block steel, beams, and any other structural elements along with the snow fencing.” The letter also stated the site must be restored with vegetation and a manner free from debris and weeds until the Pawliks move forward with redevelopment plans. The Pawliks had until July 2022 to correct the violation. The city sent the letter by U.S. mail and posted a copy on the property. The following week it sent a copy of the letter to the Pawlik’s attorney. The City Council met three different times on this matter. First, to consider whether to declare the property a nuisance. Neither the Pawliks nor their attorney were present, but the measure passed. The Council met again to conduct a public hearing to address whether to order abatement of the nuisance at the direct staff to “take all actions necessary to enter onto the property for purposes of abating the public nuisance.” The Pawliks challenged the City Council’s resolution to abate a nuisance on their property, arguing (1) the city denied them due process, (2) the city’s decision was not supported by substantial evidence, and (3) the city’s decision was arbitrary and capricious.

The Minnesota Court of Appeals reversed, ruling the city lacked substantial evidence to support an order for abatement of nuisance because it failed to provide evidence of a risk. The city determined the property constituted a public nuisance based on city code and primarily resting on safety concerns for the public. However, photo submissions from the Pawliks at the third hearing showed they restored and bolted down the plywood coverings over basement openings. The Pawliks surrounded the entire basement with concrete barriers topped by chain-link fencing. Under these conditions, the Court of Appeals found a covered and completely enclosed basement did not pose a risk to any member of the public unless they disregarded the “No Trespassing” sign, climbed over the fence, and removed the plywood. Such a risk is beyond the scope of the city’s nuisance ordinance.

ADR Ordering Abatement on Prop. Located at 10100 Lake Drive, Circle Pines, No. A22-1230 (Minn. Ct. App. Mar. 6, 2023) (nonprecedential opinion).

GOVERNMENTAL IMMUNITIES
Qualified immunity

Derek Westwater was stopped by officer Zeth Baum while driving a motorcycle and refused directions to stay by his motorcycle. Westwater approached him, Baum drew his taser, and Westwater fled into the woods. Upon exit from the woods, Westwater was handcuffed and placed in the back of Captain Kevin Church’s squad car and driven to the police station. Church was aware Westwater assaulted another officer in the past. When Church arrived at the police station, he ordered Westwater to get out of the squad car, but he delayed obeying the order for 40-45 seconds. Church punched Westwater in the back of his neck after he got out of the squad car. There are disagreements on what occurred during the altercation, after, and how much force was used.

Westwater brought suit against the officer for excessive force under 42 U.S.C., section 1983 and asserted tortious assault and battery under Iowa state law. The district court granted summary judgment (court-ordered judgment without a trial), dismissing both claims on the grounds that the force used was objectively reasonable. Westwater appealed and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit reversed, finding Westwater did not threaten Church as they drove to the police station, did not threaten to head-butt Church as he exited the squad car after passively resisting a command to exit, and could not flee. While the court recognized qualified immunity should be determined prior to trial when feasible, the court ultimately held that issue of law in this case cannot be determined without findings on genuine issues of disputed facts.

Westwater v. Church, 60 F.4th 1124 (8th Cir. 2023).

Written by Aisia Davis, research attorney with the League of Minnesota Cities. Contact: adavis@lmc.org or (651) 281-1271.