County of Swift v. Boyle
| Decision Date | 04 February 1992 |
| Docket Number | No. C3-91-1347,C3-91-1347 |
| Citation | 481 N.W.2d 74 |
| Parties | The COUNTY OF SWIFT, Appellant, v. Bill BOYLE, Pope County Auditor, Respondent. The COUNTY OF SWIFT, Appellant, v. Dick BLUTH, Stevens County Auditor, Respondent. Ed WILSON, et al., Respondents, v. The COUNTY OF POPE, et al., The County of Stevens, et al., Respondents. The COUNTY OF POPE, et al., third-party plaintiffs, Respondents, v. The COUNTY OF SWIFT, et al., third-party defendants, Appellants. |
| Court | Minnesota Court of Appeals |
Syllabus by the Court
1. A single county ditch authority may not assess drainage outlet benefits to lands in another county.
2. Where a ditch authority fails to follow statutory requirements on the filing
of a viewers' assessment report and fails to post notice of hearing on a proposed assessment, denial of a writ of mandamus directing a county auditor to file the assessment was not an abuse of discretion.
Eric J. Magnuson, Amy K. Adams, Rider, Bennett, Egan & Arundel, Minneapolis, DePaul Willette, Willette, Kraft, Walser, Nelson & Hettig, Olivia, for Swift County.
Belvin Doebbert, Asst. Pope County Atty., Nelson, Obenland & Doebbert, Glenwood, for Boyle.
Charles C. Glasrud, Stevens County Atty., Morris, for Bluth.
Kurt A. Deter, Gerald W. Von Korff, Rinke-Noonan, St. Cloud, David McLaughlin, Pflueger, Knuz & McLaughlin, P.A., Ortonville, for Wilson, et al.
Considered and decided by SHORT, P.J., and SCHUMACHER and KLAPHAKE, JJ.
Swift County challenges the trial court's refusal to issue a writ of mandamus requiring Pope and Stevens County auditors to file ditch assessments against land in those counties for benefits attributable to a ditch built by and located in Swift County. We affirm.
Swift, Stevens and Pope Counties established a joint ditch authority, Joint Ditch 9, 1 having a watershed which included portions of each of the counties. Joint Ditch 9 emptied into Swift County Ditch 3, established in 1906. After Swift County Ditch 3 deteriorated, Swift County landowners petitioned the Swift County Board (Board) for a new ditch pursuant to the statutory provision for establishment of "a drainage system entirely within one county." The new ditch was to replace Swift County Ditch 3, taking a significantly different route and draining lands in addition to those drained by Swift County Ditch 3. The petition stated:
[I]t is necessary that this drainage system be constructed to drain the lands traversed by the proposed drainage system and to drain waters from existing Judicial Ditch No. 9 [] all of which would outlet into the proposed drainage system and * * * which now outlet into existing [Swift] County Ditch No. 3.
The Board established the new ditch, Swift County Ditch 83, in February 1984. The Board order also approved the viewers' report identifying the lands the ditch benefitted and the extent of the benefits. 2 In their report, the Swift County viewers assessed benefits for the proposed ditch to watershed lands of Joint Ditch 9 lying in Stevens and Pope counties.
Identified benefitting landowners from all three counties challenged establishment of Swift County Ditch 83. Finding the challengers would be "indirectly and remotely affected" by the new ditch, the court dismissed the case for a lack of standing. Similarly, in 1985 members of the joint ditch authority 3 for Joint Ditch 9 challenged establishment of Swift County Ditch 83 but were also found to lack standing by the court because neither the lands owned by them individually nor the joint ditch authority had been assessed for construction of Swift County Ditch 83.
In 1985, the landowners who challenged establishment of Swift County Ditch 83 successfully challenged the constitutionality of the viewers' benefit assessment method. A reassessment was submitted and adopted by the Board. This reassessment included assessments against lands in Stevens and Pope Counties. The landowners' September 1987 motion to dismiss the reassessed benefits on grounds that Joint Ditch 9 already had an outlet to existing Swift County Ditch 3 was denied. In 1988, all assessment appeals were settled by stipulation, except one which was tried and appealed to this court but subsequently settled.
Ditch construction was completed in June 1988 at a cost of $887,813. In October 1988 and again in August 1989, the Board requested the auditors of Stevens and Pope Counties to file the costs assessed ($153,414.08 and $41,016.96, respectively) against the lands in their counties deemed benefitted by Swift County Ditch 83. Neither auditor complied.
In September 1989, Swift County petitioned the trial court for a writ of mandamus directing the auditors of Stevens and Pope Counties to file the assessments. Additionally, during the fall of 1989, landowners in Stevens and Pope Counties sued their respective county auditors seeking a declaratory judgment that because Swift County Ditch 83 was not a joint ditch, the auditors had no authority to enter the assessments made on its behalf.
In December 1989, the declaratory judgment and mandamus actions were consolidated. In June 1990, the trial court granted the motion to intervene made by the landowners who had previously settled their assessments. All parties then entered an agreed statement of facts. In December 1990, the trial court granted Swift County's request for mandamus only to the extent of ordering the filing of assessments against those lands whose owners had previously settled their claims. Mandamus to file the assessments against other properties was denied on jurisdictional grounds:
Swift County chose not to seek creation of a joint ditch authority pursuant to M.S. Sec. 106.015. Having failed to adhere to the statutory process for establishing a drainage system in two or more counties, Swift County had no jurisdiction over persons or property in Pope and Stevens County. Receipt of a notice to establish Ditch 83 cannot be a submission to the jurisdiction of Swift County. Arguably the decision to participate in the establishment appeal could constitute submission to Ditch 83 authority, but that argument is negated by [Swift County's] position and the Court's order holding that [the Pope and Stevens County landowners who own land in the watershed for Joint Ditch 9] were not aggrieved parties and had no standing in the Ditch 83 establishment proceeding. Those who did not appeal never were within the jurisdiction of Swift County with regard to establishment of Ditch 83. Swift County cannot pick and choose when participation in a ditch proceeding will be allowed, particularly with respect to property located in another county.
Swift County appeals the trial court's refusal to issue the requested writ. We affirm.
1. Did Swift County have authority under Minn.Stat. ch. 106 (1984) to assess land in other counties that benefitted from construction of Swift County Ditch 83?
2. Did Swift County meet the procedural prerequisites under Minn.Stat. ch. 106 (1984) for assessing land in other counties that benefitted from construction of Swift County Ditch 83?
We separately address the question of standard of review of the trial court's denial of Swift County's petition for mandamus because the parties disagree on this point. Swift County alleges that the appropriate standard of review is de novo because the matter was submitted to the trial court on stipulated facts. Respondents argue for a more traditional mandamus standard of review under our case law. We note that because of the consolidation, a declaratory judgment standard of review might also be relevant. See Minn.Stat. Sec. 555.07 (1990) (). Although we apply a mandamus analysis, we note that we would not reach a different result using a different standard of review because our holding is based upon statutory interpretation to which de novo review applies. A.J. Chromy Constr. Co. v. Commercial Mechanical Serv., Inc., 260 N.W.2d 579, 582 (Minn.1977).
The supreme court has stated:
Mandamus is an extraordinary legal remedy awarded, not as a matter of right, but in the exercise of sound judicial discretion and upon equitable principles.
[b]efore the petitioner for a writ of mandamus is entitled thereto, he must show more than that there is a public wrong specifically injurious to him. He must show that such wrong consists of some failure of official duty clearly imposed by law, and that there is no other adequate specific legal remedy.
State ex rel. Coduti v. Hauser, 219 Minn. 297, 302, 17 N.W.2d 504, 507 (1945) (citation omitted) (emphasis added). Finally, "[t]o entitle [a mandamus petitioner] to the relief sought he should come into court with a clear record." Dale v. Johnson, 143 Minn. 225, 226, 173 N.W. 417, 418 (1919) (citation omitted) (emphasis added).
Thus, regarding mandamus, the question here is whether this case presents a "clear record" of a "clearly imposed" legal duty requiring the Stevens and Pope County auditors to enter ditch assessments based on the report of Swift County viewers and whether the trial court abused its discretion in deciding it did not.
During the relevant period, Minn.Stat. ch. 106 (1984) governed ditch proceedings. Under chapter 106 there are five types of ditch proceedings:
(1) The original proceeding, Sec. 106.031, et seq. for establishment of a drainage system, either by way of a county ditch, or by a judicial ditch where more than one county is involved; (2) a proceeding, Sec. 106.471, to repair an established drainage system * * *; (3) a proceeding, Sec. 106.501, for the improvement of an existing system; (4) a proceeding, Sec. 106.511, to improve an outlet for an established ditch; and (5) a proceeding,...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Nolan and Nolan v. City of Eagan, No. A03-616.
...not as a matter of right, but in the exercise of sound judicial discretion and upon equitable principles." County of Swift v. Boyle, 481 N.W.2d 74, 77 (Minn.App.1992) (quoting State ex rel. Hennepin County Welfare Bd. v. Fitzsimmons, 239 Minn. 407, 422, 58 N.W.2d 882, 891 (1953)), review de......
-
Request of Lafayette Development Corp. to Open 18th Ave. South, Matter of, C7-96-2567
...remedy" awarded in the exercise of judicial discretion and on equitable principles, not as a matter of right. County of Swift v. Boyle, 481 N.W.2d 74, 77 (Minn.App.1992), review denied (Minn. Mar. 26, 1992). Because there is a strong presumption favoring actions by a city, if the reasonable......
-
In re Appeal from the Final Order of the Bd. of Managers of the Bois De Sioux Watershed Dist. Assessing Costs
...to certain properties.Finally, the watershed district's and intervenors' reliance on County of Swift v. Boyle is misguided. 481 N.W.2d 74 (Minn. App. 1992), review denied (Minn. Mar. 26, 1992). In Boyle , this court held that a single-county drainage authority conducting a drainage improvem......