Legislative and Law Committee Update Minnesota Judicial Branch

Transcription

1 Update Note: This update includes recent published opinions by the Court of Appeals and upcoming oral arguments of potential interest to planners. The upcoming oral arguments in this update were also identified in the state and federal update information provided to the Committee on April 13, MN Judicial Branch Update Minnesota Supreme Court On June 27 th, the Minnesota Supreme Court granted the following petitions for further review. One case relates to a annexation conflict for land that was under an orderly annexation agreement by the City of Duluth but was then annexed by ordinance by the City of Proctor. Another case involves a dispute involving the eviction of a tenant by a landlord and the circumstances that can be used when a tenant claims that the eviction was retaliatory in nature and is protected under Minnesota Statutes, section 504B.285, subdivision 2 (2016), and section 504B.441. Annexations A : In re the Matter of the Annexation of Certain Real Property to the City of Proctor from Midway Township. The City of Duluth asks the Court to grant review and rule that section preempts other subsequent methods of annexation except in conformation with the terms of a duly executed and adopted joint resolution for orderly annexation. A holding that confirms and protects the primacy of OA agreements better comports with legislative policy, and further protects the public interest in joint, longrange, collaborative planning over ad-hoc, short-term development interests in rural, open spaces. Background In January 2013, the City of Duluth and Midway Township entered into an orderly annexation agreement (OA Agreement) and designated certain land in Midway as an Orderly Annexation Area. Midway abuts both Duluth and appellant City of Proctor. The OA Agreement divided the Orderly Annexation Area into three parcels identified as Parcel I, Parcel II, and Parcel III. In May 2014, the owners executed a petition requesting annexation by ordinance to Proctor. In August 2014, Proctor adopted an ordinance to annex the property. Duluth objected to the proposed annexation by ordinance on the grounds that the property is subject to the OA Agreement and was therefore not eligible for annexation by ordinance into Proctor. : Page 1

2 In October 2014, the chief administrative law judge (chief ALJ) issued an order annexing Parcel I into Duluth. Neither Duluth nor Midway commenced proceedings to annex Parcel II or Parcel III. In October 2016, the chief ALJ issued findings of fact, conclusions of law, and order approving Proctor s annexation by ordinance. Duluth and Midway appealed to the district court, which vacated the chief ALJ s order and determined that once real property is subject to an orderly annexation agreement, that property cannot subsequently be annexed by ordinance. The Court of Appeals held that because section does not preclude nonparties to orderly annexation agreements from annexing land within designated areas by ordinance, the district court erred by vacating the chief ALJ s order for annexation. The Court of Appeals reversed a decision by the district court to vacate a ruling by the Administration Law Judge (ALJ), agreeing with the Administrative Law Judge s determination that section does not preclude nonparties to orderly annexation agreements from annexing land within designated areas by ordinance. For this reason, the Court of Appeals concluded that the district court erred by vacating the chief ALJ s order for annexation. Landlord Tenant Unlawful Detainer/Eviction A : Central Housing Associates, LP, Appellant, vs. Aaron Olson, Respondent. STATEMENT OF LEGAL ISSUES 1. May a residential tenant raise a retaliation defense to a breach-of-lease eviction action under Minn. Stat. 504B.441 without first filing a civil complaint commencing a judicial proceeding? 2. May a residential tenant raise a retaliation defense to a breach-of-lease eviction action under common law? Background Aaron Olson entered a one-year apartment lease with Central Housing Associates LP beginning May 1, On January 20, 2017, Central Housing gave Olson written notice that it was terminating his lease on February 28. (The termination notice cited breaches of multiple lease terms.) A month after receiving the notice, but before the termination date, Olson filed a report with the Minnesota Department of Human Rights, alleging that Central Housing discriminated against him. His allegations emphasized that he has a disability and that his daughter is a Muslim who wears a hijab. He alleged that Central Housing began occasionally notifying him about lease infractions only after he wrote Central Housing an complaining that a maintenance worker verbally harassed his daughter. : Page 2

3 Olson refused to vacate the property, and, after the lease period ended, Central Housing filed a holdover eviction action in district court. A jury trial followed. The district court s draft jury instructions and special-verdict form invited a finding regarding landlord discrimination and landlord retaliation as a defense to eviction. The district court omitted the discrimination-defense references after Central Housing argued that the defense cannot apply here, but Central Housing did not object to the retaliation-defense references. The jury found that Central Housing proved that Olson materially violated the terms of the lease. But it also found that Central Housing retaliated against [Olson] in whole or in part as a penalty for his good faith attempt to secure or enforce rights under the lease or the laws of the State of Minnesota or the United States. After trial, Central Housing argued that the jury s retaliation finding is legally irrelevant because the retaliation defense does not prevent an eviction premised on breach-of-lease allegations. The district court rejected the argument as a matter of procedure, concluding that Central Housing had waived it by failing to raise it sooner, and as a matter of law, concluding that the defense applies to an eviction action even when it is premised on breach-of-lease allegations. Central Housing appealed. Court of Appeals Decision The retaliatory-eviction defense described in sections 504B.285 and 504B.441 is available only in the statutorily defined circumstances outlined in those sections. Central Housing s breach-of-lease eviction action includes none of those circumstances. The jury s finding that Central Housing retaliated against Olson is therefore irrelevant to the eviction action. The district court should not have relied on that finding to deny Central Housing s demand for eviction after the jury found that Olson breached the lease. We reverse and remand for the district court to award possession of the leased premises to Central Housing. : Page 3

4 Oral Arguments Held Decisions Pending In May, the Minnesota Supreme Court and the Court of Appeals heard two cases of potential interest to planners. Decisions are pending. This information was included in the state and federal update information provided the Committee on April 13, 2018 and published in the April 15th Judicial Branch update. Minnesota Supreme Court Oral Argument for Woodbury Roadway Assessment Litigation Held on May 8th Harstad, et al. v. City of Woodbury Case Number: A The City is challenging the Court of Appeals decision to uphold the district court's decision to strike down the city s use of a conditional approval to a subdivision application by requiring the payment of a negotiated major road assessment by the developer. Statement of Legal Issues 1. Minn. Stat , subd. 2a authorizes cities to condition approval for a subdivision on either (a) the construction and installation of streets and other infrastructure made necessary by the development, or (b) provision of financial security to assure the completion of those improvements. Does the statute authorize cities to impose a requirement for financial security in the form of a negotiated infrastructure fee? 2. Does the statute distinguish between infrastructure improvements depending on whether they are located inside or outside of the parcel to be subdivided? 3. Does the authority to execute and enforce development contracts provided by the statute include the right to negotiate terms for the provision and use of financial security to assure construction of necessary infrastructure improvements? Minnesota Court of Appeals Oral Argument for Winona County Silica Mining Litigation Held on May 10th Minnesota Sands, LLC, Appellant, vs. County of Winona, Minnesota, Respondent. Case Number: A On January 16, 2018, Minnesota Sands, LLC continued its challenge to a Winona County ordinance by appealing the lawsuit to the Minnesota Court of Appeals. The Third Judicial District in Winona County Court had dismissed the case. The ordinance bans industrial mining of all silica sand under leases with Winona County. As a result, the company is claiming that it has no economically viable use for any of its leases. : Page 4

5 Winona County Judge Mary Leahy dismissed the lawsuit in November 2017, holding that the county board acted within its legislative capacity in adopting the ordinance. The judge also held that the ordinance does not violate the interstate commerce clause or constitutes a "taking" because Minnesota Sands, LLC The plaintiffs originally had a conditional use to mine their lands prior to the adoption of the County s ordinance which does not deprive Minnesota Sands of "all economic value" because the land can still be used for other purposes. Minnesota Sands, LLC and Southeast Minnesota Property Owners, a Minnesota Nonprofit Corporation, and Roger Dabelstein listed the issues on appeal as follows: Whether the correct burdens of proof and other standards were applied; whether the Ordinance Amendment violates Appellant s equal protection, due process, interstate commerce clause, and taking rights; whether material issues of fact remain in the case. : Page 5