Cnty. of Rice v. Cervenka
| Decision Date | 24 September 2012 |
| Docket Number | A12-0344 |
| Parties | County of Rice, Respondent, v. Brad Cervenka, et al., Defendants, James C. Schmitz, et al., Appellants. |
| Court | Minnesota Court of Appeals |
This opinion will be unpublished and
may not be cited except as provided by
Minn. Stat. § 480A.08, subd. 3 (2010).
Reversed and remanded
Rice County District Court
G. Paul Beaumaster, Rice County Attorney, Terence Swihart, Assistant Rice County Attorney, Faribault, Minnesota (for respondent)
Loren Gross, Bloomington, Minnesota (for appellants)
Considered and decided by Wright, Presiding Judge; Schellhas, Judge; and Larkin, Judge.
UNPUBLISHED OPINION
In this condemnation dispute, appellants James and Sharon Schmitz, the owners of property taken by respondent Rice County, appealed the award of the condemnationcommissioners to district court. The district court later dismissed the matter for appellants' failure to prosecute the appeal and denied their subsequent motion to reopen the case. Appellants now appeal to this court, arguing that the district court should have reopened the case. For the reasons addressed below, we reverse and remand.
The condemnation commissioners in this eminent-domain proceeding awarded James and Sharon Schmitz (the landowners) $107,000 for a taking of their property by Rice County. On January 21, 2011, the landowners, through their attorney, appealed the award to district court, seeking damages of $223,000. When neither side filed scheduling information, the district court ordered the parties to do so by April 25, 2011. The county complied with the district court's order. The landowners, however, did not. The district court subsequently dismissed the matter for the landowners' failure to prosecute but stayed the dismissal until May 24, "to allow either party to seek alternate relief." See Minn. R. Civ. P. 41.02(a) ().
On May 16, 2011, the district court filed a scheduling order, which set a pretrial hearing for November 10, and a two-day court trial starting on November 21. The district court's order advised: "Failure to comply with the provisions of this Order may result in default relief, the imposition of sanctions, including refusal to allow designated claims, or other sanctions as appropriate." On May 23, the landowners filed an informational statement requesting a jury trial.
On June 7, the landowners filed a substitution of attorneys. The county filed its witness list and statement of the case on November 2. At the pretrial hearing on November 10, the county appeared, but there was no appearance for the landowners.
In its November 16, 2011 order, the district court detailed the procedural history of the case and dismissed the landowners' appeal with prejudice. The district court observed that, on June 6, 2011, the county served the landowners' attorney with interrogatories, a request for production of documents, and a demand for disclosure under Minn. Stat. § 117.165, subd. 2 (2010). But the district court found that,
The district court also found that, although the substitution of counsel identified a new attorney as the landowners' counsel, the new attorney "did not file a Certificate of Representation and made no appearance on behalf of [the landowners]." The district court noted that, because the landowners' first attorney "did not serve any Notice of Withdrawal pursuant to Rule 105 of the General Rules of Practice . . . the County's attorney continued to operate with the belief that [the first attorney] represented [the landowners]."
After observing the landowners' failure to appear at the pretrial hearing, the district court found as follows:
Represented by their new counsel, the landowners moved the district court on November 30, 2011 to reopen the case under Minnesota Rules of Civil Procedure 60.02 and to set the matter for a jury trial. In an affidavit accompanying the landowners' motion, the landowners' attorney stated that, although he had been responsible for the matter, his client, James Schmitz, had been receiving daily treatment in another city for a life-threatening illness; and the landowners' attorney admitted his own "inattention" to the file. The county opposed the landowners' motion. After a hearing, the district court denied the landowners' motion to reopen the case, and this appeal followed.
The procedural missteps culminating in the dismissal of the landowners' appeal to the district court were largely attributable to the omissions of the landowners' original and successor attorneys. The affidavit of the landowners' second attorney, filed insupport of the landowners' motion to reopen the case, was admirably forthright about his handling of the case.
Courts generally try to avoid penalizing a party for problems arising in a legal matter that are not attributable to the party. See Duenow v. Lindeman, 223 Minn. 505, 518, 27 N.W.2d 421, 429 (1947) (). "Courts will relieve parties from the consequences of the neglect or mistakes of their attorney, when it can be done without substantial prejudice to their adversaries." Id. This principle is particularly applicable in a condemnation case, which involves a party's constitutional right to be adequately compensated for a taking of the party's property:
The decisions in this state have never unduly restricted the owner's constitutional right to just compensation where there has been a taking of private property for public use under the powers of eminent domain. Attempts on the part of a condemnor by technical means to defeat the landowner's right to his day in court have never been viewed with favor. Every owner is constitutionally entitled to a just and equal application of the rule that what he owns shall not be taken from him or destroyed or damaged for public use without just compensation.
State by Lord v. Rust, 256 Minn. 246, 253, 98 N.W.2d 271, 276 (1959); see Hous. & Redev. Auth. ex rel. City of Richfield v. Adelmann, 590 N.W.2d 327, 338 (Minn. 1999) (Anderson, Paul H., J., concurring specially) (quoting this aspect of Rust when addressing the disfavor with which courts view a condemnor's attempts to deprive a property owner of his day in court, and noting that this disfavor is "especially [the case] when the constitutional right to just compensation for the taking of land is involved").
Here, the district court found that, if this case were reopened, "[n]o prejudice would result to Rice County other than the ordinary delay associated with proceedings in a lawsuit" and that this prejudice was "insufficient to show 'substantial prejudice.'" Thus, because the failure to comply with the district court's orders is not attributable to the landowners, but rather their counsel, the district court's decision to dismiss the condemnation proceeding is contrary to the general principles that afford property owners their day in court.
The affidavit of the landowners' second attorney filed in support of the landowners' motion to reopen the case states that, after he received the file, "my client [James Schmitz] was suffering some very severe life-threatening health problems" and was "driving to Rochester every day for treatment of those problems." To the extent that the breakdown in communication between attorney and client caused the failure to pursue the condemnation in district court, we decline to hold that a district court's otherwise appropriate efforts to manage its calendar trump a party's need for daily treatment of a life-threatening illness. Cf. Nye v. Swan, 42 Minn. 243, 245, 44 N.W. 9, 10 (1889) (). This is particularly so when, as here, the affidavit of the landowners' attorney states that "Mr. Schmitz has [recovered] to reasonably good health and his condition should not be reason for delay in getting this matter before a jury."
The district court's decision also is inconsistent with the principles underlying Minnesota Rules of Civil Procedure 60.02, which allows the district court to relieve aparty of an otherwise final ruling and to order a new trial or other relief as may be just, for one or more of the reasons recited in that rule. In support of their opposition to dismiss, the landowners cited Rose v. Neubauer, 407 N.W.2d 727, 728 (Minn. App. 1987), review denied (Minn. Aug. 19, 1987), which involves a motion to reopen based on a claim of excusable neglect under rule 60.02(a).
Although the rules of civil procedure do not govern eminent-domain proceedings to the extent that those rules are inconsistent with the eminent-domain statute, Adelmann, 590 N.W.2d at 332, an eminent-domain proceeding that occurs after an appeal to district court of an award of...
To continue reading
Request your trial