Alexandria Lake Area Service Region v. Johnson

• Decision Date: 03 July 1980
• Docket Number: No. 50131,50132.,50131
• Parties: ALEXANDRIA LAKE AREA SERVICE REGION, Appellant, v. Chester D. JOHNSON et al., Defendants, John L. Verlennich and Gloria M. Verlennich, Respondents, and ALEXANDRIA LAKE AREA SERVICE REGION, Appellant, v. George E. SERCL and Lenore K. Sercl, Respondents.
• Court: Minnesota Supreme Court

295 N.W.2d 588 (1980)

ALEXANDRIA LAKE AREA SERVICE REGION, Appellant, v. Chester D. JOHNSON et al., Defendants, John L. Verlennich and Gloria M. Verlennich, Respondents, and ALEXANDRIA LAKE AREA SERVICE REGION, Appellant, v. George E. SERCL and Lenore K. Sercl, Respondents.

Nos. 50131, 50132.

Supreme Court of Minnesota.

July 3, 1980.

Swenson, Grover, Lervick & Syverson, John Lervick and Morris A. Grover, Alexandria, for appellant.

Rufer, Hefte, Pemberton, Schulze, Sorlie & Sefkow and H. Morrison Kershner, Fergus Falls, for respondents.

Heard before TODD, YETKA, and SCOTT, JJ., and considered and decided by the court en banc.

TODD, Justice.

These consolidated appeals arise out of condemnation proceedings incident to the installation of a sewage line. The proposed installation was originally to be located on the road side of the landowners' property but, at the time of condemnation, the location of the line was changed to the lake side of the property. The landowners contended that the planning and construction of the sewer hookups on their properties were based on the originally proposed sewage line and that they would, therefore, incur additional expense in hooking up to the lake side line. At the initial hearing, the trial court appointed commissioners to assess damages and instructed them to include the additional hookup costs in their award. No appeal was taken from this order. The commissioners awarded damages for the taking of the easements and for the additional costs of hooking up to the new sewer line. The condemning authority appealed from this award to the trial court on the ground that the hookup cost was not a recoverable damage in an eminent domain proceeding. Neither party challenged the portion of the award which related to the taking of the easements. The trial court affirmed the award and dismissed the appeal. We reverse.

The issues presented in this this appeal are:

(1) Is the appeal timely as to the original order of the trial court instructing the commissioners to include connection costs in their awards?

(2) May additional costs of hooking up to a sewer line be included in a damage award for a taking?

1. Respondents contend that the appeal from the order of the trial court confirming the damage award is not timely as to the issue of what was to be included in that award since the prior order of the court appointing the commissioners and instructing them to include such damages was not appealed from.

The statutory scheme for eminent domain proceedings contemplates that the district court determine the necessity for the taking and then appoint commissioners to assess and award damages. Minn.Stat. § 117.075 (1978). The commissioners are required to award damages and file a report of the award with the district court. Minn.Stat. § 117.085 (1978). A party to the proceeding may then appeal to the district court from the commissioners' award. Minn.Stat. § 117.145 (1978).

Respondents argue that a direct appeal should have been taken to this court from the trial court's original order appointing commissioners and instructing them to include the hookup costs in their damage awards. Respondents cite the case of County of Blue Earth v. Stauffenberg, 264 N.W.2d 647 (Minn.1978), in support of this proposition. In Stauffenberg, we determined that a direct appeal could be taken to this court from a district court order granting a condemnation petition even though Rule 103.03, Rules of Civil Appellate Procedure, does not provide for such a direct appeal. However, the Stauffenberg case involved the appealability of the public necessity determination contained in the district court order and is, therefore, distinguishable from the issue involved herein. We decline to extend the rule of the Stauffenberg case to situations beyond those involving the issue of public necessity. The Stauffenberg holding was based on the rationale that the allowance of appeals from a district court order determining necessity would serve to preclude the waste of judicial economy if the initial taking were to be invalidated. Here, the issue relates to damages and is within the scope of the authority of the trial court and this court in reviewing condemnation matters. State, by Mondale, v. Wren Inc., 275 Minn. 259, 262, 146 N.W.2d 547, 550 (1966), quoting State, by Lord, v. Pearson, 260 Minn. 477, 489-490, 110 N.W.2d 206, 215 (1961). Thus, we conclude that the matter is properly before this court.

2. Under Minn.Const. art. 1, § 13, property owners are entitled to just compensation for property taken, destroyed, or damaged for public use. Minn.Stat. § 117.085 (1978) requires that property owners be awarded damages which result from the taking. Thus, where only a part of a tract of land is taken, the landowner is entitled to damages for loss to the part remaining as well as to the part actually...