St. Paul Park Ref. Co. v. Domeier, A19-0573

• Citation: 938 N.W.2d 288
• Decision Date: 03 February 2020
• Docket Number: A19-0573
• Parties: ST. PAUL PARK REFINING CO. LLC, Respondent, v. Brian DOMEIER, Appellant.
• Court: Court of Appeals of Minnesota

938 N.W.2d 288

ST. PAUL PARK REFINING CO. LLC, Respondent,

v.Brian DOMEIER, Appellant.

A19-0573

Court of Appeals of Minnesota.

Filed February 3, 2020

Matthew J. Schaap, Robert B. Bauer, Dougherty, Molenda, Solfest, Hills & Bauer P.A., Apple Valley, Minnesota (for respondent)

Dean M. Zimmerli, Gislason & Hunter LLP, New Ulm, Minnesota (for appellant)

Considered and decided by Hooten, Presiding Judge; Cleary, Chief Judge; and Smith, Tracy M., Judge.

CLEARY, Chief Judge

On appeal from the district court’s grant of partial summary judgment, appellant argues that the district court erred in dismissing his adverse-possession counterclaim. He contends that the district court erred by determining that the disputed land was subject to the tax-payment requirement of Minn. Stat. § 541.02. We affirm in part, reverse in part, and remand for further proceedings.

FACTS

Respondent St. Paul Park Refining Co. LLC (the Refinery) owns approximately 168 acres of land in St. Paul Park. The portion relevant to this appeal consists of two separately assessed tax parcels identified as Washington County Parcel ID Nos. 36.028.22.34.0039 (west parcel) and 36.028.22.43.0001 (east parcel). The Refinery acquired fee title to these parcels from its predecessor in interest in 2010. The two parcels at issue comprise approximately 46 acres.

The east and west parcels are undeveloped and are largely wooded. Appellant Brian Domeier moved into a neighborhood north of, but not adjacent to, the two parcels in 1998 and began to use portions of the two parcels. Domeier’s activities on the land included gardening, planting trees, erecting a fence, and placing deer stands around the property.

In 2003, Domeier purchased land immediately north of the east and west parcels. Domeier built a house there, where he continues to reside. He has continued his activities on the two parcels. Domeier has never paid property taxes on either parcel.

In 2016, the Refinery discovered Domeier’s presence on the east and west parcels. The Refinery filed suit against Domeier in November 2017, alleging trespass and ejectment, seeking a declaration that the Refinery is the fee owner of the disputed property, and seeking injunctive relief. Domeier counterclaimed, alleging adverse possession, trespass, and ejectment. The following map¹ depicts the portions of the parcels that Domeier claims, amounting to 52.19% of the west parcel and 5.32% of the east parcel:

The Refinery moved for partial summary judgment on Domeier’s adverse-possession claim. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of the Refinery, concluding that Domeier was required to pay taxes for five consecutive years in order to prevail on his adverse-possession claim under Minn. Stat. § 541.02. This appeal follows.

ISSUES

I. Does Domeier’s adverse-possession claim fail as a matter of law because he has not paid taxes on the east and west parcels under Minn. Stat. § 541.02 ?

II. Is Domeier bound by statements in his counterclaim, and are the statements fatal to his adverse-possession claim?

ANALYSIS

I. Under the tax-payment requirement of Minn. Stat. § 541.02, Domeier’s adverse-possession claim fails as a matter of law as to the west parcel, but not the east parcel.

Domeier argues that the tax-payment requirement of section 541.02 does not apply to his adverse-possession claim because he is not claiming "all or substantially all" of the separately assessed tax parcels.

On appeal from summary judgment, we review de novo whether there are any genuine issues of material fact and whether the district court erred in its application of the law. Harmon v. Comm'r of Revenue , 894 N.W.2d 155, 159 (Minn. 2017). We view the evidence in the light most favorable to the party against whom the district court granted summary judgment and resolve all doubts and factual inferences against the moving party. Compart v. Wolfstellar , 906 N.W.2d 598, 602 (Minn. App. 2018), review denied (Minn. Apr. 17, 2018). Summary judgment is appropriate if "the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with the affidavits" show that either party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Fabio v. Bellomo , 504 N.W.2d 758, 761 (Minn. 1993).

Individuals claiming adverse possession must show, by clear and convincing evidence, that their possession was actual, open, continuous, exclusive, and hostile for 15 years. Ehle v. Prosser , 293 Minn. 183, 197 N.W.2d 458, 462 (1972). In addition, there is a statutory requirement that, in certain instances, the adverse claimant must pay property taxes on the disputed parcel for "five consecutive years" as a prerequisite to an adverse-possession claim. Minn. Stat. § 541.02. Section 541.02 provides:

No action for the recovery of real estate or the possession thereof shall be maintained unless it appears that the plaintiff, the plaintiff’s ancestor, predecessor, or grantor was seized or possessed of the premises in question within 15 years before the beginning of the action.

Such limitations shall not be a bar to an action for the recovery of real estate assessed as tracts or parcels separate from other real estate, unless it appears that the party claiming title by adverse possession or the party’s ancestor, predecessor, or grantor, or all of them together, shall have paid taxes on the real estate in question at least five consecutive years of the time during which the party claims these lands to have been occupied adversely.

The provisions of the preceding paragraph shall not apply to actions relating to the boundary line of lands, which boundary lines are established by adverse possession, or to actions concerning lands included between the government or platted line and the line established by such adverse possession, or to lands not assessed for taxation.

The district court concluded that the east and west parcels are separately assessed for tax purposes, and because this is not a boundary dispute, the exception to the tax-payment requirement does not apply. Because Domeier has not paid taxes on either parcel, the district court granted summary judgment in favor of the Refinery. A district court’s interpretation of a statute is reviewed de novo. Brookfield Trade Ctr., Inc. v. County of Ramsey , 609 N.W.2d 868, 874 (Minn. 2000).

Claims related to boundary lines and claims to lands not assessed for taxation as separate tracts are exempt from the tax-payment requirement. Ehle , 197 N.W.2d at 462. Domeier does not contend that this is a boundary-line dispute but argues instead that the tax-payment requirement only applies when an adverse possessor claims "all or substantially" all of a separately assessed parcel, and because he does not claim "all or substantially all" of either parcel, the tax-payment requirement does not apply here.

Minnesota caselaw has generated some confusion on the question of whether the tax-payment requirement applies when a disseizor seeks less than all of a separately assessed tax parcel. In Skala v. Lindbeck , a disseizor claimed 4.7 acres of a 6.2-acre parcel. 171 Minn. 410, 214 N.W. 271, 271 (1927). The supreme court held that the fact that the disseizor had not paid taxes on the 4.7 acres did not defeat his adverse-possession claim because the 4.7 acres was not separately assessed for tax purposes. Id. at 272.

In Bryant v. Gustafson , the disseizors claimed a portion of a roadway contiguous to their land. 230 Minn. 1, 40 N.W.2d 427, 430-31 (1950). The supreme court in Bryant held that the disseizors’ adverse-possession claim failed, in part, because the disseizors had not paid taxes on the roadway for five consecutive years as a prerequisite to their adverse-possession claim. Id. at 433-34.

In Ehle , decided in 1972, the supreme court held that the tax-payment requirement only applies to adverse-possession claims when the disputed parcel is in itself separately assessed for tax purposes. 197 N.W.2d at 460-62. Ehle was a boundary dispute involving a 37-foot strip along one edge of a separately assessed parcel. Id. at 460-61. The 37-foot strip was not separately assessed, and the court stated that a claim to land not assessed as a separate tract was "clearly exempt" from the tax-payment requirement. Id. at 461-62.

Subsequently, in Grubb v. State , on which Domeier relies, this court attempted to clarify whether the tax-payment requirement can apply when the disputed tract is only a portion of a separately assessed parcel. 433 N.W.2d 915, 920 (Minn. App. 1988), review denied (Minn. Feb. 22, 1989). In Grubb , the disseizor claimed 13 acres of his neighbor’s 16-acre parcel. Id. at 919. The disseizor argued that, because he did not claim all 16 acres of the separately assessed tract, the 13 acres he was claiming were not separately assessed and were therefore exempt from the tax-payment requirement. Id. The district court in Grubb adopted this argument, citing Ehle . Id. This court reversed, concluding that "the legislature intended the tax-payment requirement to apply to actions where the disseizor claims all or substantially all of an assessed tract or parcel" because "if such were not the legislative intent, a disseizor could always avoid the tax-payment requirement ... by claiming anything less than all of the assessed tract or parcel." Id. at 920. This court relied on Bryant to support its conclusion that the tax-payment requirement applies even when the land in dispute is only a portion of a separately assessed parcel. Id. at 921. This court went on to hold that the disseizor was required to meet the tax-payment requirement because the disputed property made up approximately 80% of the separately assessed parcel. Id. at 920-21.

More recently, in Compart , this court concluded that the disseizors were not required to pay taxes as a prerequisite to their adverse-possession claim because the disseizors were only claiming 20% of a separately assessed parcel and this did not constitute "all or substantially all" of the separately assessed parcel. 906 N.W.2d...