In re Mojtaba Sharifkhani to Register Title to Certain Land
| Decision Date | 19 December 2022 |
| Docket Number | A22-0617 |
| Parties | In the Matter of the Application of Mojtaba Sharifkhani to Register Title to Certain Land. |
| Court | Minnesota Court of Appeals |
This opinion is nonprecedential except as provided by Minn. R Civ. App. P. 136.01, subd. 1(c).
Ramsey County District Court File No. 62-CV-18-2813
David M. Robbins, Meyer, Njus, Tanick, P.A., Minneapolis, Minnesota (for appellant Mojtaba Sharifkhani)
Katherine M. Melander, Brian W.Varland, Heley, Duncan &Melander, P.L.L.P., (for respondents RK Ventures L.L.C., Drake Bank, United States Small Business Administration)
Andrew M. Luger, United States Attorney, Ana H. Voss, Assistant United States Attorney (for respondent United States Small Business Administration)
Considered and decided by Reyes, Presiding Judge; Larkin, Judge; and Halbrooks, Judge. [*]
Following a court trial in a Torrens registration proceeding under Minn. Stat. §§ 508.01-.84 (2022), appellant challenges the district court's determination that the Minnesota Marketable Title Act (MTA), Minn. Stat. § 541.023 (2022), did not extinguish a recorded easement, arguing that the MTA possession exception does not apply to a misused easement. We affirm.
Appellant Mojtaba Sharifkhani is the fee owner of land that is burdened by the easement at issue in this case. In April 2018, Sharifkhani filed an application to have the title to the land registered. In his application, Sharifkhani sought an adjudication that the following recorded easement from 1933 had been terminated:
Easement for driveway for vehicles and for footway for pedestrians to pass and to repass to and from Walnut Street, along and over the same, on and over the southeasterly twelve 12 feet of the southwesterly one-half of Lot 8, and the southeasterly 12 feet of Lot 9, in Block 27, Rice and Irvine's Addition to Saint Paul, Minnesota, as established in Book 921, Page 445 as Document No. 849079.[1]
Based on its expressed terms, the easement benefits and runs with the land referred to by the parties as parcel 3 and legally described as:
The Northwesterly 38 feet of the Southeasterly 50 feet of the Southwesterly one-half of Lot 8 and the Northwesterly 38 feet of the Southeasterly 50 feet of Lot 9, Block 27, Rice and Irvine's Addition to Saint Paul, Ramsey County, Minnesota.
In other words, the easement gives those having an interest in parcel 3 vehicular and pedestrian access along parcel 3 to Walnut Street over a 12-foot swath owned by Sharifkhani. Respondent RK Ventures, LLC, is the fee owner of parcel 3, and respondents Drake Bank and U.S. Small Business Administration hold mortgages secured by RK Ventures's property (collectively, respondents). RK Ventures also owns contiguous parcels 1 and 2, which have no rights to the easement.
[Image Omitted]
In 1933, Sharifkhani's predecessor-in-title granted the easement to the predecessor-in-title to parcel 3. From the time of the grant to the present, parcels 1 and 2 have been used as commercial properties. From the time of the grant until 1999, parcel 3 contained a house and was used as residential property. Parcel 3's residents used the easement to access the house.
In summer 1999, the house was demolished and, soon after, parcels 1, 2, and 3 came under common ownership. Then, parcels 1 and 2 became Tom Reid's Hockey City Pub (the Pub). Between summer 1999 and 2008, parcel 3 contained a parking area.
In 2008-2009, the Pub constructed an outdoor patio over part of the parking area on parcel 3. From 2008-2009 until May 2017, the remaining parking area of parcel 3 was still accessible by vehicle and by pedestrians through the easement. A 2017 addition created a single structure covering parcels 1, 2, and 3. The easement is now used as an emergency exit for the entire Pub, as a personal exit for an RK Ventures member, and as a path to haul trash from the Pub.
When Sharifkhani sought a legal determination in the Torrens proceeding that the MTA terminated the easement in April 2018, respondents filed answers in opposition. After the parties stipulated to many key facts, including that the MTA possession exception was satisfied from May 15, 1973, to January 1, 1999, the examiner of titles held a court trial in August 2021. The district court adopted the examiner's recommendation and determined that the evidence presented showed continuous use since May 15, 1973, thereby meeting the MTA possession exception, and precluding termination of the easement by operation of the MTA. This appeal follows.
In this appeal from a Torrens registration proceeding, the parties disagree over how the use of an easement should be treated under the MTA. Sharifkhani's arguments turn on two areas of easement law: (1) the legal interpretation of the MTA possession exception and (2) the extent of common law on acceptable uses of easements. Sharifkhani urges this court to, in effect, apply equitable principles established under general easement caselaw to the statutory MTA possession exception. We therefore start our analysis with an overview of the MTA and the MTA possession exception.
The MTA provides recorded fee simple owners of real property with a way to remove old conditions and restrictions that interfere with the property's marketability. Wichelman v. Messner, 83 N.W.2d 800, 819 (Minn. 1957). The express policy underlying the statute is that "ancient records shall not fetter the marketability of real estate." Minn. Stat. § 541.023, subd. 5. The MTA provides:
As against a claim of title based upon a source of title, which source has then been of record at least 40 years, no action affecting the possession or title of any real estate shall be commenced by a person, partnership, corporation, other legal entity, state, or any political division thereof, to enforce any right, claim, interest, incumbrance, or lien founded upon any instrument, event or transaction which was executed or occurred more than 40 years prior to the commencement of such action, unless within 40 years after such execution or occurrence there has been recorded in the office of the county recorder in the county in which the real estate affected is situated, a notice sworn to by the claimant . . . setting forth the name of the claimant, a description of the real estate affected and of the instrument, event or transaction on which such claim is founded ....
Id., subd. 1 (emphasis added). Therefore, when one party holds property in fee simple that has been recorded for over 40 years, and a second party claims an interest in that property that is also at least 40 years old, then the second party or its predecessors-in-interest must file the statutorily required notice of its claim within 40 years of the creation of its interest. Sampair v. Village of Birchwood, 784 N.W.2d 65, 68 (Minn. 2010). The purpose of the notice is "to confirm the continuation" of the second party's interest in the property and "to eliminate stale claims that may clutter" the first party's title. Id. at 69. "Any potential claimant who has not filed the statutorily prescribed notice within 40 years of the creation of its interest 'shall be conclusively presumed to have abandoned' any interest it might have had in the property." Id. (quoting Minn. Stat. § 541.023, subd. 5). The Minnesota Supreme Court has held that easements are property interests that can be eliminated under the MTA. Id.
However, even if the holder of an easement fails to record the statutorily prescribed notice, the easement holder can turn to the MTA possession exception: the MTA does not "bar the rights of any person . . . in possession of real estate." Minn. Stat. § 541.023, subd. 6. A party claiming this possession exception has the burden of proving possession by a preponderance of the evidence. See Sampair, 784 N.W.2d at 74. To show possession of an easement under the MTA, a party must demonstrate continuous "use sufficient to put a prudent person on notice of the asserted interest in the land, giving due regard to the nature of the easement at issue." Id. at 70. The party must prove possession "beginning at the deadline for filing notice under the MTA-i.e., within 40 years of when the property interest was created-and continuing through the filing of the relevant action regarding ownership." Id. at 73. If a party fails to prove "continuous" use of an easement during the relevant period, the MTA extinguishes the party's interest in the easement. Id. at 71.
Sharifkhani asserts that respondents improperly expanded the use of the easement, which is a misuse and cannot constitute continuous use for purposes of the MTA possession exception. We are not persuaded.
This issue presents a mixed question of law and fact. "When reviewing mixed questions of law and fact, we correct erroneous applications of law, but accord the district court discretion in its ultimate conclusions and review such conclusions under an abuse of discretion standard." In re Est. of Sullivan, 868 N.W.2d 750, 754 (Minn.App. 2015) (quotation omitted). "A district court abuses its discretion by making findings of fact that are unsupported by the evidence, misapplying the law, or delivering a decision that is against logic and the facts on record." Woolsey v. Woolsey, 975 N.W.2d 502, 506 (Minn. 2022) (quoting Bender v. Bernhard, 971 N.W.2d 257, 262 (Minn. 2022)).
Sharifkhani argues that the district court misapplied the...
To continue reading
Request your trial