In re HUC Pipeline Condemnation Litigation, No. A03-1125 (Minn. App. 5/4/2004), No. A03-1125.

• Decision Date: 04 May 2004
• Docket Number: No. A03-1125.
• Parties: In re: HUC Pipeline Condemnation Litigation.
• Court: Minnesota Court of Appeals

Page 1

Unpublished Opinion

In re: HUC Pipeline Condemnation Litigation.

No. A03-1125.

Minnesota Court of Appeals.

Filed May 4, 2004.

This opinion will be unpublished and may not be cited except as provided by Minn. Stat. § 480A.08, subd. 3 (2002).

Appeal from the District Court, Martin County, File No. CX-03-220.

Appeal from the District Court, Watonwan County, File No. C3-03-128.

Appeal from the District Court, Brown County, File Nos. CX-03-221/C6-03-300/C3-03-304/C9-03-274.

Appeal from the District Court, Nicollet County, File Nos. C6-03-194/C3-03-282/C3-03-248.

Appeal from the District Court, Sibley County, File No. C7-03-88.

Appeal from the District Court, McLeod County, File Nos. CX-03-563/C5-03-678.

David A. Allgeyer, Ann E. Kennedy, Lindquist & Vennum P.L.L.P., (for appellants landowners)

Reed H. Glawe, Gislason & Hunter LLP, and Michael J. Long, Thies & Long, P.A., and Bruce E. Hanson, Oppenheimer, Wolff & Donnelly LLP, (for respondents City of Hutchinson and Hutchinson Utilities Commission)

Considered and decided by Randall, Presiding Judge, Klaphake, Judge, and Forsberg, Judge.^*

UNPUBLISHED OPINION

KLAPHAKE, Judge.

Appellants are owners of land that respondent City of Hutchinson (the city), through its public utility, the Hutchinson Utilities Commission (the HUC), has condemned in order to create an easement for a natural gas pipeline. Appellants challenge the district court's quick-take condemnation order, asserting that the city lacks authority to condemn land through six counties for this purpose. Appellants further argue that the quick-take proceeding was defective because the description of land to be condemned was insufficient and because the city failed to deposit enough money to cover appellants' potential losses.

Because the city has authority to exercise its power of eminent domain under its charter and relevant state statutes, we affirm as to public necessity. Because the remaining issues are not appealable at this stage of the proceedings, we dismiss the balance of the appeal.

DECISION

Appellate review of the district court's interpretation of the quick-take statute is a question of law subject to de novo review. In re Condemnation by City of Minneapolis, 632 N.W.2d 586, 589 (Minn. 2001). Generally, an order granting a condemnation petition is construed as an intermediate, nonappealable order, but an aggrieved party may challenge the issue of public necessity in a direct appeal from such an order. Blue Earth County v. Stauffenberg, 264 N.W.2d 647, 649-50 (Minn. 1978). On appeal, only the issue of public necessity is examined; the supreme court has declined to extend the right to appeal to any other issue raised in a condemnation order. Alexandria Lake Area Serv. Region v. Johnson, 295 N.W.2d 588, 590 (Minn. 1980); see also City of Duluth v. Stephenson, 481 N.W.2d 577, 578 (Minn. App. 1992), review denied (Minn. May 15, 1992).

Appellate review of the district court's determination that a taking is necessary for a public purpose is narrow. In re Condemnation by Minneapolis Cmty. Dev. Agency, 582 N.W.2d 596, 598 (Minn. App. 1998), review denied (Minn. Oct. 29, 1998). Public purpose and necessity are questions of fact, and we will not reverse the district court's decisions on these matters unless clearly erroneous. Id. at 599. Issues other than public necessity and purpose are reserved for appeal after a final order is entered. Johnson, 295 N.W.2d at 590.

The city argues that the issue regarding its authority to condemn is not appealable because it is not related to public necessity, which is the sole issue appealable at this stage in the proceedings. We disagree. If the city lacks authority to condemn, it cannot have a public purpose or show a public necessity. We therefore review, as a public necessity issue, appellants' challenge to the city's authority to exercise its power of eminent domain over a 90-mile route through six counties.

The city's power to exercise eminent domain is based in its city charter and in state statutes. The city is a home rule charter city. As to local matters, cities operating under home rule charters generally have all the powers that the state has, except when the powers have been expressly or impliedly withheld under the state constitu...