Dock v. Waconia Landing Homeowners Ass'n, Inc.
| Decision Date | 04 December 2017 |
| Docket Number | A17-0184 |
| Parties | Jayson Dock, et al., Appellants, v. Waconia Landing Homeowners Association, Inc., Respondent. |
| 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This opinion will be unpublished and may not be cited except as provided by Minn.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 (2016).
Affirmed
Carver County District Court
John P. Boyle, Kelly C. McGinty, Moss & Barnett, A Professional Association, Minneapolis, Minnesota (for appellants)
Margaret E. Dalton, Todd M. Winter, Stoel Rives LLP, Minneapolis, Minnesota (for respondent)
Considered and decided by Larkin, Presiding Judge; Cleary, Chief Judge; and Worke, Judge.
UNPUBLISHED OPINION
Appellant homeowners challenge the district court's award of summary judgment to respondent homeowners association in this dispute regarding respondent's installation of a dock, arguing that the district court erred in finding that their lawsuit is barred under the doctrine of res judicata. We affirm.
Appellants Jayson Dock and Cristine Dock (the Docks) live in Waconia Landing Addition (Waconia Landing), a residential subdivision on Lake Waconia. The Docks' residence abuts Lake Waconia and has 112 feet of shoreline. Each property owner within Waconia Landing is a member of respondent Waconia Landing Homeowners Association Inc. (the association), including the Docks. An outlot is directly adjacent to the Docks' property and has approximately 90 feet of lakeshore on Lake Waconia. Six of the homes in Waconia Landing (6F Group) abut a marshy portion of Lake Waconia. The marshy conditions of their shoreline prevent the 6F Group homeowners from using a dock or launching a boat on Lake Waconia.
In March 2000, the Declaration of Single Family Residential Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions for Waconia Landing Addition (declaration) was recorded in the office of the Carver County Recorder. The declaration expressly granted the 6F Group the "right to install, store and maintain one dock with six boat lifts" off of the outlot. The 6F Group currently installs and maintains a seasonal dock off of the outlot (6F dock) with space for six watercraft. In addition, the association installs and maintains a seasonal dock (association dock) off of the outlot with space for six watercraft that is available for use by all of the association members.
In May 2014, the Docks sued the association and the 6F Group homeowners, asserting trespass and breach-of-contract claims. The Docks alleged that for several years,the association and 6F docks had been "installed and maintained at a sharp angle from the [outlot] in such a manner that the [docks] cross[ed] over and encroach[ed] upon that portion of Lake Waconia located in front of the Dock Property." The Docks alleged that the placement of the association and 6F docks created a safety hazard and that it interfered with the Docks' riparian rights. The Docks further alleged that the placement of the docks violated the declaration "because it unreasonably interferes with, annoys, and disturbs [them]; constitutes an annoyance and nuisance to [them]; and violates Minnesota law and the DNR published dock installation guidelines." The Docks requested a declaratory judgment "declaring that extending the boundary line shared by [the outlot] and the Dock Property establishes the Riparian Boundary between the portion of Lake Waconia located in front of [the outlot] and the portion of Lake Waconia located in front of the Dock Property."
The district court granted the association and 6F Group's motion to dismiss the Docks' complaint. First, the district court reasoned that the Docks did not "have exclusive possession [of] Lake Waconia and ha[d] not shown that they have a legal right that ha[d] been trespassed upon." Second, the district court found that the Docks failed to state a viable claim for relief regarding any of the alleged breaches of the declaration. The district court found that the Docks' breach-of-contract claim based on a DNR publication did not state a viable claim for relief because the publication's installation guidelines were not rules or regulations and therefore did not have the force of law. The district court also found that the Docks' other breach-of-contract claims were without merit because they failed to "explain how allegedly annoying or offensive activity that occurs in LakeWaconia's public water could constitute annoying or offensive activity that occurs on [the outlot]" that would be subject to the declaration.
In August 2016, the Docks once again sued the association, alleging that the association did not have a legal right to install and maintain the association dock. The Docks relied on the declaration, two Waconia City Council resolutions regarding the outlot, an agreement between the city and Waconia Landing's developer, and DNR regulations. The Docks also alleged that the dense use of the association dock had "created a dangerously-congested condition that ha[d] interfered with the safe use by the Docks of their dock." The Docks requested a declaratory judgment regarding (1) "[t]he Association's right to install and maintain a separate dock other than the 6F dock off of [the outlot]," (2) "[w]hether overnight parking of watercraft is permitted on a dock off of [the outlot]," and (3) "[w]hether a watercraft other than one owned by a 6F property owner may be moored off of [the outlot]."
The association moved to dismiss the Docks' complaint under Minn. R. Civ. P. 12.02(e) for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, alleging that the association had a lawful right to install and maintain the association dock and that the Docks' claim was barred under the doctrine of res judicata. The district court granted the association's motion. The Docks appeal.
I.
The Docks contend that the district court erred in dismissing their complaint under Minn. R. Civ. P. 12.02(e) under the doctrine of res judicata.
A pleading can be dismissed under Minn. R. Civ. P. 12.02(e) if it "fail[s] to state a claim upon which relief can be granted." A pleading should be dismissed under rule 12.02(e) "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." Bahr v. Capella Univ., 788 N.W.2d 76, 80 (Minn. 2010) (quotation omitted). Appellate courts review orders to dismiss under Minn. R. Civ. P. 12.02(e) de novo. Sipe v. STS Mfg., Inc., 834 N.W.2d 683, 686 (Minn. 2013). This court considers "only the facts alleged in the complaint, accepting those facts as true." Id. (quotation omitted). However, this court is "not bound by legal conclusions stated in a complaint." Hebert v. City of Fifty Lakes, 744 N.W.2d 226, 235 (Minn. 2008).
"Once there is an adjudication of a dispute between parties, res judicata prevents either party from relitigating claims arising from the original circumstances, even under new legal theories." Hauschildt v. Beckingham, 686 N.W.2d 829, 837 (Minn. 2004). "Res judicata . . . prevents parties from splitting claims into more than one lawsuit and precludes further litigation of the same claim." Loo v. Loo, 520 N.W.2d 740, 744 n.1 (Minn. 1994). The res judicata doctrine "reflects courts' disfavor with multiple lawsuits for the same cause of action and wasteful litigation." Schober v. Comm'r of Revenue, 853 N.W.2d 102, 111 (Minn. 2013) (quotation omitted).
Res judicata bars a subsequent claim when "(1) the earlier claim involved the same set of factual circumstances; (2) the earlier claim involved the same parties or their privies; (3) there was a final judgment on the merits; (4) the estopped party had a full and fair opportunity to litigate the matter." Hauschildt, 686 N.W.2d at 840. "All four prongs mustbe met for res judicata to apply." Id. "Res judicata applies equally to claims actually litigated and to claims that could have been litigated in the earlier action." Brown-Wilbert, Inc. v. Copeland Buhl & Co., 732 N.W.2d 209, 220 (Minn. 2007). However, "[r]es judicata is not applied rigidly but is a flexible doctrine in which the focus is on whether its application would work an injustice on the party against whom estoppel is urged." Mach v. Wells Concrete Prods. Co., 866 N.W.2d 921, 925-26 (Minn. 2015) (quotation omitted). This court reviews the application of res judicata de novo. Rucker v. Schmidt, 794 N.W.2d 114, 117 (Minn. 2011).
The Docks concede that there was a final judgment on the merits in the prior litigation. And although the Docks note that the 6F Group homeowners were defendants in the prior litigation and they are not defendants in this action, the Docks do not argue that the same-parties prong of the res judicata four-part test is not satisfied. We therefore focus on the remaining two res judicata inquiries: whether the Docks' earlier claim involved the same set of factual circumstances and whether the Docks had a full and fair opportunity to litigate the matter.
The Docks argue that "[t]he Prior Litigation did not involve the same factual circumstances, the same cause of action, or the same claims" as this action. Specifically, the Docks contend that their "request for a judicial determination regarding the permitted number of docks differs in form, purpose, and scope from the Prior Litigation" and that "[t]he proof required to determine the issues in this action differs from the proof required in the Prior Litigation."
"Identity of subject matter does not establish that two claims are the same cause of action." Care Inst., Inc.-Roseville v. County of Ramsey, 612 N.W.2d 443, 447 (Minn. 2000). "Two causes of action are the same when they involve the same set of factual circumstances or when the same evidence will sustain both actions." SMA Servs., Inc. v. Weaver, 632 N.W.2d 770, 774 (Minn. App. 2001) (quotation omitted). Two causes of action involve the same set of factual circumstances when "the same operative nucleus of facts is alleged...
To continue reading
Request your trial