MINNEAPOLIS EMINENT DOMAIN ATTORNEY WORKING TO AMEND EMINENT DOMAIN LAWS
Minneapolis eminent domain attorney, Jon W, Morphew, is working with the Minnesota legislature to make changes to Minnesota Statutes 117.115 and 117.145 to correct language that (1) has been confusing to Minnesota courts, (2) resulted in burdensome judicial processes and (3) has caused the dismissal of otherwise legitimate eminent domain appeals, denying parties due process.
Minnesota eminent domain actions establish a panel of commissioners to determine the value of damages caused by a condemning authority. The notice of the decision of the panel is served on parties defined in Section 117.115. If a party wishes to appeal the commissioners’ decision to the district court, they are required to follow the process outlined in Section 117.145.
Minnesota courts have interpreted Section 117.145 in a variety of ways. In the case Mpls. Comm. Dev. Agency v. Golden Spike, Inc., the Minnesota Court of Appeals limited notice to only those respondents who still had an interest in the land. They did not dismiss the case when parties that were listed in the petition, but no longer had an interest, were not served.
However, in the case with Woodhall v. State, the Supreme Court dismissed the eminent domain appeal for failing to serve all named parties, even though they did not participate or have an established interest in the parcel being appealed.
Recently, in the Fourth Judicial District (Hennepin County), two courts have had conflicting decisions. In Hennepin v. Realty Income Properties 3 LLC, the court dismissed the appeal, finding that the requirement for notice required service on all parties named in the petition, even if those parties had interest in different parcels than were being appealed. However, in CBS MN Properties, LLC v. Hennepin, the court denied a motion to dismiss for failing to serve all parties named in the petition, finding that “just because all respondents were named as interested parties in the Petition does not mean they are all interested parties for all parcels”.
These four cases show that confusion reigns in regard to how to initiate an appeal of a commissioners’ panel decision, and the proposed revisions to Section 117.115 and 117.145 will remedy that confusion.
In an attempt to try to rectify this confusion and bring clarity to the eminent domain appeal process, Mr. Morphew is working Senator John Jasinski and Representative Sandy Masin to amend these two statutes.
The amendments Mr. Morphew is seeking to Section 117.115 clarifies that the notice of the report of commissioners (the decision of the panel of commissioners) should only be sent to those with an interest in the parcel that is the subject of the report. The revisions correct any confusion that the condemning authority (the public or utility) would need to provide notice of the report to parties that have no interest in the subject of the report.
The amendments Mr. Morphew is seeking to Section 117.145 does four things:
Allows for E-service if a party is signed up for the district court’s electronic service tool. This brings the statute in line with the court’s rules that have been working well for a number of years.
Limits the need to provide notice of an appeal to parties that don’t have an interest in the parcel being appealed to the district court. This fixes the main problem that leads to the confusion of the courts.
Ensures that notice of appeal is served on the condemning authority. This is an oversight of the existing language. Since it is obvious that the condemning authority needs to participate in the appeal, this fixes any confusion about whether the petitioner must be notified within the process laid out in Section 117.145.
Adjusts the service language to match up with language used in the Minnesota Civil Rules of Procedure (as well as the federal rules). Since the previous paragraph identifies “who” needs to be provided with service of the notice of appeal, the second paragraph doesn’t need to reference the “affidavit of mailing”. Instead, it provides that the notice is sent to the last know mailing address. This language is what is used for mailing service in other civil matters.
The bill has been introduced in the Senate as SF2966 and should soon be introduced in the House as well. It is Mr. Morphew’s belief that this proposal will be non-controversial and many of the groups that have an interest in the proposed legislation are in support of it.
If you know of anyone being impacted by the government’s use of its power of eminent domain, an experienced eminent domain and relocation benefits lawyer can make sure your interests are protected and you receive all of the compensation you are entitled to under the law. If you are facing such a situation, contact Jon Morphew at Morphew Law today.