Cnty. of Wash. v. City of Oak Park Heights

Decision Date08 August 2012
Docket NumberNo. A11–0067.,A11–0067.
Citation818 N.W.2d 533
PartiesCOUNTY OF WASHINGTON, Respondent, v. CITY OF OAK PARK HEIGHTS, Appellant.
CourtMinnesota Supreme Court

OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE

Syllabus by the Court

1. Absent a statute or appellate rule to the contrary, a writ of certiorari under Minn.Stat. ch. 606 (2010), is the exclusive method to seek review of a municipality's quasi-judicial decision denying a requested reimbursement for alleged overpayment of sewer and water services.

2. A city council's denial of a requested reimbursement for alleged overpayment for sewer and water services was a quasi-judicial decision because the city council investigated a disputed claim, weighed evidentiary facts, applied those facts to a standard prescribed by statute, and issued a binding decision pursuant to a written appeal policy regarding that claim.

3. The proprietary-governmental conduct dichotomy is not relevant to determining the manner of review of a municipality's quasi-judicial decision.

Reversed and remanded.Peter Orput, Washington County Attorney, George Kuprian, Assistant County Attorney, Stillwater, MN, for respondent.

Pierre N. Regnier, Jessica E. Schwie, Jardine, Logan & O'Brien, P.L.L.P., Lake Elmo, MN, for appellant.

Susan L. Naughton, Saint Paul, MN, for amicus curiae League of Minnesota Cities.

OPINION

DIETZEN, Justice.

This case requires us to decide whether certiorari review under Minn.Stat. ch. 606 (2010), is the exclusive method for reviewing a city council's denial of a request for a refund of an alleged overpayment for sewer and water services. Respondent Washington County (County) filed a claim for reimbursement with appellant City of Oak Park Heights (City), alleging that the City had overcharged the County for sewer and water services. Following consideration at a City Council meeting, the City adopted findings and conclusions, and issued an order denying the County's claim. Subsequently, the County sued the City in district court, and the City moved for summary judgment, asserting that review of its decision was limited to certiorari review under Minn.Stat. ch. 606 and that the County's failure to bring a timely certiorari petition deprived the district court of subject matter jurisdiction. The district court denied the motion, and the court of appeals affirmed in a published decision. We granted the City's petition for review. We conclude that the City's decision to deny the refund is a quasi-judicial decision, and therefore the exclusive method for reviewing the City's decision was through a writ of certiorari under Minn.Stat. ch. 606. Because the district court lacked subject matter jurisdiction to hear the County's claim, we reverse the court of appeals.

The material facts relevant to the issue of the district court's subject matter jurisdiction are undisputed. The City provides sewer and water services to the Washington County Law Enforcement Center. During the relevant time period, water usage at the Center was monitored through a combination of seven water meters. The City charged the County for services determined through meter readings conducted by County employees. During a sales and use tax audit by the Minnesota Department of Revenue, the County initiated an investigation into the City's sewer and water charges. Pursuant to its investigation, the County concluded that numerous errors in its employees' reading of the meters, as well as discrepancies in reporting the meter readings, had resulted in the City overcharging the County for sewer and water services.

A written City policy adopted by the City Council establishes a three-part procedure for appealing utility charges. First, if a customer believes that “charges for utility accounts have been improperly assessed,” they “shall contact the Accountant to determine if staff may handle the problem.” In the event that the “Accountant cannot resolve the appeal, the customer shall communicate the appeal to the City in writing.” The policy contains a number of requirements specifying the contents of such a written appeal. Finally, [i]f the customer is not satisfied with the response from the written appeal, he may request that the matter be placed on the agenda and discussed by the City Council at a formal meeting.” The policy further provides that [t]he City Council shall have the final determination on appeals.” 1

Following the audit, the County notified the City that the County had been overcharged for sewer and water services and requested a refund, in compliance with the City's policy for challenging utility charges. In May 2009 the City Finance and Utility Department denied the County's request for reimbursement. The County then filed an appeal with the City Council.

In September 2009 the County presented its reimbursement claim at a City Council meeting. The County offered evidence in support of its claim and requested reimbursement in the amount of $114,262. In October 2009 the City Council again considered the appeal at a public meeting. Subsequently, the City Council adopted a resolution containing findings and conclusions, and issued an order denying the County's appeal. The City Council concluded that “the County has not supplied the City with reasonable documented evidence that indicates in any regard that the meter readings implemented by the County staff were in error, or precipitated an error in billing when reported to City Staff.”

Subsequently, the County brought suit against the City in district court, asserting a cause of action for unjust enrichment and seeking reimbursement of the amount allegedly overcharged by the City. Both parties filed motions for summary judgment. The County argued that summary judgment was appropriate because the “only issue [wa]s that the City received money for services it did not provide.” The City argued that the district court lacked subject matter jurisdiction over the action on the ground that the City Council's decision to deny the County's request for reimbursement was quasi-judicial, and that review of its decision was therefore limited to a writ of certiorari before the Minnesota Court of Appeals pursuant to Minn.Stat. § 606.01.

The district court denied both motions for summary judgment. The court determined that in providing sewer and water services, the City had acted in a proprietary capacity. Because the City was “acting in the capacity of a private corporation, not a governmental entity,” the court concluded that “its actions [were] not quasi-judicial, and therefore jurisdiction of this matter lies properly with the court.” The City appealed the denial of summary judgment based on subject matter jurisdiction.

The court of appeals affirmed, concluding that the district court had subject matter jurisdiction over the County's claim. Cnty. of Washington v. City of Oak Park Heights, 802 N.W.2d 767 (Minn.App.2011). The court of appeals first determined that the City's provision of sewer and water services was a proprietary activity “because the city voluntarily engage[d] ‘in the same business which, when conducted by private persons, is operated for profit.’ Id. at 769 (quoting Keever v. City of Mankato, 113 Minn. 55, 61, 129 N.W. 158, 159 (1910)). Because in denying the request for reimbursement the City was “act[ing] as any other business, with the same rights and responsibilities,” the court of appeals reasoned that the City “cannot reasonably be viewed as engaging in governmental conduct,” and that the City's decision to deny reimbursement was not subject to review by a writ of certiorari. Id. at 770. Therefore, the court of appeals concluded that the district court had subject matter jurisdiction. Id. at 771.

I.

The City argues the district court erred in denying the City's motion for summary judgment and concluding that the court had subject matter jurisdiction to consider the County's overpayment claim. According to the City, certiorari review under Minn.Stat. § 606.01 is the exclusive method for review of a city council's quasi-judicial decision denying a refund for sewer and water charges.

We review a district court's denial of summary judgment de novo. See Riverview Muir Doran, LLC v. JADT Dev. Grp., LLC, 790 N.W.2d 167, 170 (Minn.2010). On review, “our task is to determine whether genuine issues of material fact exist, and whether the district court correctly applied the law.” Savela v. City of Duluth, 806 N.W.2d 793, 796 (Minn.2011).

Subject matter jurisdiction is the authority of the court to hear the type of dispute at issue and to grant the type of relief sought. Seehus v. Bor–Son Const., Inc., 783 N.W.2d 144, 147 (Minn.2010). A district court's denial of summary judgment is appealable when the motion is based on the court's alleged lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Minn. R. Civ.App. P. 103.03 advisory comm. cmt.—1998 amendment; see McGowan v. Our Savior's Lutheran Church, 527 N.W.2d 830, 833 (Minn.1995). Whether a court has jurisdiction is a question of law that we review de novo. State v. Ali, 806 N.W.2d 45, 51 (Minn.2011).

When a party seeks review of a municipal decision, the reviewing court has subject matter jurisdiction, provided that the party challenging the decision timely seeks relief in the proper manner and forum. See Tischer v. Hous. & Redev. Auth. of Cambridge, 693 N.W.2d 426, 429 (Minn.2005). The question here is whether the proper method to seek review of the City's decision was by filing an action in the district court or seeking certiorari review in the court of appeals. If a writ of certiorari filed under Minn.Stat. ch. 606 2 with the court of appeals is the exclusive method by which to challenge a municipality's decision, then the district court lacks subject matter jurisdiction to hear the case. See Dokmo v. Indep. Sch. Dist. No. 11, 459 N.W.2d 671, 677–78 (Minn.1990) (concluding that where the writ of certiorari was the appropriate method to seek review, the district court lacked subject matter jurisdiction to decide a declaratory judgment action); see also...

To continue reading

Request your trial
34 cases
  • Cruz-Guzman v. State, A16-1265
    • United States
    • Minnesota Supreme Court
    • July 25, 2018
    ...power in different ways. We ask whether we have jurisdiction over parties or matters. See, e.g. , County of Washington v. City of Oak Park Heights , 818 N.W.2d 533, 538 (Minn. 2012) (subject matter jurisdiction); Juelich v. Yamazaki Mazak Optonics Corp. , 682 N.W.2d 565, 569 (Minn. 2004) (p......
  • Williams v. Smith, Nos. A10–1802
    • United States
    • Minnesota Supreme Court
    • October 2, 2012
    ...conduct dichotomy to determine the manner of judicial review of municipal decision-making. Cnty. of Washington v. City of Oak Park Heights, 818 N.W.2d 533, 545–46 (Minn.2012). We reject the proprietary-governmental conduct dichotomy in this context as well. Reversed.GILDEA, C.J., PAGE, PAUL......
  • Zweber v. Credit River Twp.
    • United States
    • Minnesota Supreme Court
    • July 27, 2016
    ...606.01, which grants exclusive jurisdiction to the court of appeals over petitions for a writ of certiorari.2 See, e.g., Cty. of Washington v. City of Oak Park Heights, 818 N.W.2d 533, 539 (Minn.2012) ; see also Minn.Stat. § 606.01 (stating that parties “shall apply to the Court of Appeals”......
  • Ariola v. City of Stillwater
    • United States
    • Minnesota Court of Appeals
    • January 23, 2017
    ...denying relief for Jack's estate. There is no question that the immunity bar has harsh consequences. County of Washington v. City of Oak Park Heights , 818 N.W.2d 533, 543 (Minn. 2012) (recognizing the "harsh results of governmental immunity for tort and contract liability"). Summary judgme......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT