Laserfiche WebLink
Neutral <br />As of: April 21. 2015 3:26 PM EDT <br />Bolen v. Glass <br />Supreme Court of Minnesota <br />August 14, 2008, Filed <br />A06-1422. A06-1440 <br />Reporter <br />755 N.W.2d 1; 2008 Minn. LEX1S 417 <br />Michael Bolen, et al., Respondents, vs. Todd Class, Appellant. City of Duluth, Respondent. <br />Prior History: 1**1] Court of Appeals. <br />Bolen v. 73 N.W.2d 856 2007 Minn A 121 2007 <br />Disposition: Reversed, <br />Core Terms <br />Street, plat, easement, district court, dedicated. Lake, adjoining, gravel, public use, ordinance, Charter, parties, authority to <br />issue, municipal, highways, Block <br />Case Summary <br />Procedural Posture <br />Respondent neighbors sued appellant landowner, alleging trespass and seeking declaratory and injunctive relief after <br />appellant added gravel to parts of the street where respondents owned the underlying fee. The district court ordered him <br />to restore the street to its prior condition. The Court of Appeals of Minnesota required appellant to restore those parts of <br />the street where he was not the underlying fee holder. Appellant petitioned for review. <br />Overview <br />Appellant added gravel to a platted but undeveloped street adjoining his property, pursuant to a permit issued by the City <br />of Duluth, Minnesota, The gravel extended onto parts of the street where respondent neighbors owned the underlying fee. <br />They brought an action against him for trespass. The district court ordered him to restore the street to its prior condition. <br />The court of appeals affirmed the district court but modified the judgment to require appellant to restore only those parts <br />of the street where he was not the underlying fee holder. The Supreme Court of Minnesota reversed. Under Minn. Star. § <br />505,01, subd. /, the public had a property interest in the undeveloped street. Duluth, Minn.. Ordinance No. 7055, § 1 gave <br />the City authority to issue appellant a permit providing for the construction of private improvements on the street. <br />Appellant, as any purchaser of a lot within the plat, was entitled to use the streets designated on the plat. <br />Outcome <br />The decision of the court of appeals was reversed, <br />LexisNexis® Headnotes <br />Real Property Law > > Transfer Not By Deed > Dedication > General Overview <br />TIN) Sce finn. Stat. 505.01. subd. 1 (Supp. 2007). <br />MARTIN NORDER <br />