298 N.W.2d 763 (Minn. 1980), 50556, City of Minnetonka v. Carlson

• Date: 31 October 1980
• Citation: 298 N.W.2d 763
• Docket Number: 50556.
• Parties: CITY OF MINNETONKA, petitioner, Appellant, v. Clarence Dwight CARLSON, et al., Respondents.
• Court: Minnesota Supreme Court

Page 763

298 N.W.2d 763 (Minn. 1980)

CITY OF MINNETONKA, petitioner, Appellant,

v.

Clarence Dwight CARLSON, et al., Respondents.

No. 50556.

Supreme Court of Minnesota.

October 31, 1980

Page 764

Syllabus by the Court

This court will reverse a trial court's findings only if, upon review of the entire record, we are left with a firm and definite conviction that a mistake has been made. The trial court's findings on compensation awarded to the owners' attorney, upon the municipality's abandonment of its condemnation action, are well supported by the evidence. This court will therefore not substitute its judgment for that of the district court.

Deborah Hedlund, Minnetonka, for petitioner, appellant.

Olson, Gunn & Seran, Minneapolis, for respondents.

Considered and decided by the court en banc without oral argument.

SCOTT, Justice.

The petitioner, City of Minnetonka, appeals from the order of a three-judge panel of the Hennepin County District Court filed on August 3, 1979, granting attorneys fees in the amount of $30,000 in favor of the respondents. We affirm.

The facts underlying this controversy were fully described in an opinion issued in this case on a prior occasion, entitled City of Minnetonka v. Carlson, 265 N.W.2d 205 (Minn.1978) (Carlson I ). The eight respondents owned three parcels of land which the City of Minnetonka wished to obtain for park and recreational purposes. The city obtained two separate appraisals of the three parcels. One appraisal valued them at $264,000, the other appraisal at $240,000. On the basis of these appraisals, the city commenced condemnation proceedings in district court. The respondents retained attorney John D. Flanery to represent them under a contingent fee agreement providing that the attorney would receive one-third of the amount by which the condemnation awards exceeded $150,000.

The city's petition to condemn was granted and three commissioners were appointed pursuant to Minn.Stat. § 117.075 (1976) to determine an award. Because the commissioners returned awards totaling $404,475 greater than the highest of the two private appraisals, the city decided to abandon the condemnation.

At this point, Attorney Flanery associated with a law firm to assist him in contesting the legality of the city's abandonment. The Hennepin County District Court subsequently held that the city could properly abandon the condemnation, and no appeal was taken from that determination.

Thereafter, the respondents moved the district court for an order directing the city

Page 765

to pay their reasonable costs and expenses, including attorney fees, relying upon Minn.Stat. § 117.195 (1976). ¹ The district court ordered the city to pay the respondents $1,500 for appraisal expenses, but denied any recovery of attorneys fees. An appeal was then taken to this court. In Carlson I, the court concluded that the respondents were entitled to attorneys fees for services prior to the time of abandonment. In authorizing the award of attorneys fees, the Carlson I court stated:

(W)hat constitutes the reasonable value of the legal services is a question of fact to be determined by the evidence submitted, the facts disclosed by the record of the proceedings, and the court's own knowledge of the case. * * * Absent any statutory limitations, allowances should be made with due regard for all relevant circumstances, including the time and labor required; the nature and difficulty of the responsibility assumed; the amount involved and the results obtained; the fees customarily charged for similar legal services; the experience, reputation and ability of counsel; and the fee arrangement existing between counsel and the client.

265 N.W.2d at 206 (quoting with approval from State ex rel. Head v. Paulson, 290 Minn. 371, 373, 188 N.W.2d 424, 426 (1971) (emphasis added in Carlson I ). The court thus defined the parameters of its remand of the matter to the district court.

Pursuant to the remand interrogatories were served by the city upon Attorney Flanery on August 14, 1978. Attorney Flanery never answered the interrogatories in writing; instead, he responded orally to the city attorney's questions on August 28, 1978, at a special-term hearing of the Hennepin County District Court. Attorney Flanery additionally presented the testimony of other witnesses relating to his claim for attorneys fees.

On August 29, 1978, the city moved the court alternatively to allow it to depose any further witnesses or to strike the testimony of those already heard by the court. By its order dated August 29, 1978, the court directed that all witness testimony be stricken and authorized further discovery. Thereafter, on December 8, 1978, the district court heard arguments of counsel relating to the nature of the proceeding and subsequently directed that the matter be considered at special term. By order dated February 12, 1979, the district court directed an award of attorneys fees in the amount of $9,000. The respondents then moved the court for reconsideration. By order dated February 27, 1979, the court on its own motion vacated the order of February 12, 1979, and referred the matter to a three-judge panel for consideration.

In an order dated July 24, 1979, the majority of the panel found that an award of $30,000 was in all respects a reasonable fee upon the city's abandonment of the condemnation proceedings. ² This appeal by the city followed.

In reaching its decision the three-judge panel reviewed several affidavits containing expert opinions relating to the value of Attorney Flanery's services from the time he was retained until the abandonment occurred. Four attorneys who are primarily engaged in condemnation practice representing both condemnees and condemnors opined that the services could be valued at $35,000 (Paul Skjervold); $40,000 (Josiah Brill); $80,000 (Russell Sorenson); and $90,000

Page 766

(Thomas Ulmen). Additionally, each of the three court-appointed commissioners offered affidavits praising Attorney Flanery's competence and diligence in connection with the proceedings.

Attorney Flanery's own affidavit enumerated the many consultations with his clients, detailed the many meetings with officials in connection...