01-23-1985 Additions - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Aux, u<;cx ' Lr,•i t;.sz Aa "it aa;gsgi Court decisions Ellen Longfellow Special assessments — judicial review A district court rnay review a special assessment by requiring a "trial de novo" which means that the court will examine all of the facts in the case itself rather than deferring to the city council's analysis of the facts. The city council of North St. Paul completed improvements to streets and sewers and proposed assessments against abutting landowners. Many of the property owners filed objections to the proposed assessments. The city conducted hearings as required in M.S. 429.061, Subd. 2. The objecting prop- erty owners submitted appraisal reports at the hearing which stated that the value of the benefit from the improvements was $600 per lot. The city council adopted findings of fact and assessed the property owners at the originally proposed higher amount. The owners appealed to the district court. The court combined the cases and held a new evidentiary hearing on the facts. It then held that the proposed assess- ments exceeded the benefit and set a maximum amount that the city could assess each owner. The court ordered the city to conduct a reassessment and to pay the owners for their costs which included expert fees. The main issue on appeal was wheth- er it was proper for the district court to review the special assessments as a trial de novo. The Minnesota Court of Appeals held that the lower court could review the facts of the case rather than accept the city council's findings on the facts because the council's decision was not that of an impartial body. This was the same conclusion as in an earlier case which also involved the city of North St. Paul. (See Lydon v. City of North St. Paul, Minn. Ct. App., Sept. 25, 1984.) The court noted that the council was the advocate of the assessment as it had originally proposed it and also the decision -maker who must decide if the assessment was reasonable. There- fore, the council's decision is ''sus - pect" because the council was an inter- ested party and the owners did not receive constitutional procedural pro- tections. The district court could then properly review the facts at a trial de novo. The court also upheld the award of costs including expert fees as the lower court did not abuse its discretion. (nfohwinkel et al. v. City of No. St. Paul et al, Minn. Ct. App., Nov. 9, 1984.) Sewer back -ups — city liability A city will be held liable for damages for sewer back -ups if the evidence shows that the city's lack of maintenance caused the pipes to be obstructed and the city's con- duct supported a finding of negli- gence. A city sewer backed up in the base- ment of a resident's house, damaging carpeting, paneling, furniture, encyclo- pedias, clothing, and photographs. The city had no regular program of mainte- nance for its sewer lines other than flushing the lines yearly. Prior to the back -up, the city had added a hospital and nursing home to the same line as the resident's house, but had not changed the size of the line or the way the system worked to accommodate the increased load. The back -up occurred in the city main but the cause was unknown. Neither the city nor the resident had any prior notice other than a similar back -up affecting a neighbor of the resident in 1979. At trial, the jury awarded the resident $10,000 which the court lowered to $6,000. The court denied the city's motion for a judgment notwithstanding the verdict. The city appealed on the grounds that there was insufficient evidence to support the judgment and that the lower court should not have allowed evidence of replacement costs to be admitted to determine damages, The resident appealed the lower court's decision to decrease the amount of damages. The Minnesota Court of Appeals upheld the trial court's decision. 1t emphasized that in a case where the main issue is a denial of a motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict, a court must look at the evidence in the most favorable light to the verdict. In this particular case, even though a city is not an insurer of the sewer system, it will be found liable if its lack of maintenance contributed to the obstruction of the pipe. It appears that the city's lack of maintenance and its failure to develop a plan to increase the sewer's capability when the load increased were evidence of negligence and causation which would support a denial of the motion for a judgment notwithstanding the verdict. The court also stated that it was proper for the lower court to accept replacement costs to determine the damages. The judge had noted in the jury instructions that replacement costs are relevant only as evidence of the fair market value. In regard to the amount of the damages, the court noted that the lower court may reduce the award and that decision may only be reversed if the lower court had abused its discre- tion. Here the evidence supported the reduction. (Lavin v. City of Long Prai- rie, 355 N.W,2d 764, Minn. App. 1984.) Zoning — group homes Under Minnesota Statutes 462.357, a residential home for four elderly residents is a pennitted sin- gle- family use within a city's zoning regulations. A nursing home corporation proposed to develop a home to &ire for four elderly residents in a residential district. There was no requirement for a state nursing home license, as there would be less than five residents, (M.S. 144A.01, subd. 5.) The home would include space for four individual bedrooms for the residents; common areas such as living room, dining room, and kitchen; and living quarters for two houseparents. Daay nursing was part of the proposal, and the corporation had received a hoard and lodging license from the county. 14 'est...,.a xs d. it:. this - s,a r ,1,. t -r ,a7,7 ',Sire stak5 1