Brakke v. Hilgers, C1-85-799

• Decision Date: 01 October 1985
• Docket Number: No. C1-85-799,C1-85-799
• Citation: 374 N.W.2d 553
• Parties: Ronald BRAKKE, et al., Appellants, v. Thomas HILGERS, et al., Respondents.
• Court: Minnesota Court of Appeals

Page 553

374 N.W.2d 553

Ronald BRAKKE, et al., Appellants, v. Thomas HILGERS, et al., Respondents.

No. C1-85-799.

Court of Appeals of Minnesota.

Oct. 1, 1985.

Syllabus by the Court

Dismissal of appellants' complaint for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted was not error.

Ronald Brakke, pro se.

Zenas Baer, Wefald & Baer, Hawley, for respondents Hilgers.

David S. Maring, Cahill, Jeffries & Maring, Moorhead, for respondent Zenas Baer.

Considered and decided by POPOVICH, C.J., and SEDGWICK and LANSING, JJ., with oral argument waived.

OPINION

POPOVICH, Chief Judge.

After cancellation of a contract for deed the vendees, Ronald and Jean Brakke, sued the vendors, Thomas and Patricia Hilgers and the vendors' attorney, Zenas Baer, claiming: (1) the Hilgers had a duty of forbearance and should not have strictly applied the statutory cancellation proceeding; (2) Baer wrongfully interfered and incompetently advised the Hilgers; (3) the Hilgers and Baer conspired to trespass on the Brakkes' property rights; and (4) Brakkes incurred $450,000 in damages. Brakkes' action was dismissed for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. We affirm.

FACTS

Thomas and Patricia Hilgers sold approximately 1050 acres to Ronald and Jean Brakke for $1,240,150 by contract for deed dated March 17, 1981. Under the contract the Brakkes agreed to: (1) make a $90,096.89 payment on November 1, 1983 and each November 1 thereafter for 28 years or until the contract price was paid in full; and (2) pay all taxes in 1984 and subsequent years. The contract: (1) granted the Brakkes the right of possession and to remove fences, rocks and trees or other things which would hinder their farming operations; (2) specified that all improvements were to be paid for by the Brakkes; and (3) stated that time of payment was an essential part of the contract.

In November 1984, the Brakkes failed to timely pay $90,096.89 and the property taxes. On November 7, 1984, Hilgers commenced cancellation proceedings. The notice was served on the Brakkes November 7, 1984 and specified the contract would terminate 30 days after service of the notice unless the Brakkes obtained an order from county or district court suspending the cancellation proceeding until any claims or defenses could be disposed of by trial, hearing, or settlement. The Brakkes did not obtain any order and the cancellation notice was filed with the Clay County Recorder on December 11, 1984.

On December 11, 1984, Brakkes filed a labor and material lien against the property with the Clay County Recorder. In January 1985, Hilgers commenced an action against the Brakkes claiming (1) damage by the wrongful filing of Brakkes' alleged lien, and (2) they be adjudged the absolute and unqualified owners of the land. The Brakkes, who proceeded pro se, then commenced an action against the Hilgers and their attorney Baer.

Hilgers moved for dismissal and attorney's fees pursuant to Minn.Stat. Sec. 549.21 alleging: (1) the complaint failed to state a claim upon which relief may be granted; (2) insufficient service of process; and (3) the court lacked subject matter jurisdiction. In response, Brakkes claimed they had a $451,600.38 lien on the property and alleged that prior to cancellation they made: (1) $259,832.65 in improvements to the farmland, which included leveling land, clearing and burying trees, rocks and fences, filling 90 percent of an open gravel pit, digging drainage ditches and paying for labor to complete these tasks; and (2) $191,767.73 in payments under the contract.

The trial court dismissed Brakkes' complaint on the grounds that it failed to state a claim upon which relief could be granted and awarded $755 in attorney's fees.

ISSUE

Was dismissal of the Brakkes' complaint for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted error?

ANALYSIS

1. In reviewing dismissal of a complaint for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, we must determine:

"whether the complaint sets forth a legally sufficient claim for relief. It is immaterial to our consideration here whether or not the plaintiff can prove the facts alleged." Royal Realty Co. v. Levin, 244 Minn. 288, 290, 69 N.W.2d 667, 670 (1955) (emphasis supplied). The limited function served by such a motion to dismiss was reiterated in Northern States Power Co. v. Franklin, 265 Minn. 391, 395, 122 N.W.2d 26, 29 (1963):

A claim is sufficient against a motion to dismiss based on Rule 12.02(5) if it is possible on any evidence which might be produced, consistent with the pleader's theory, to grant the relief demanded. To state it another way, under this rule a pleading will be dismissed only if it appears to a certainty that no facts, which could be introduced consistent with the pleading, exist which would support granting the relief demanded.

Elzie v. Commissioner of Public Safety, 298 N.W.2d 29, 32 (Minn.1980).

2. On appeal, Brakkes claim: (1) they have legitimate mechanic's and laborer's liens by operation of law; (2) unjust enrichment by the improvements; and (3) application of the statutory cancellation proceedings

is questionable because of the large amounts of property and money at...