Independent School Dist. No. 194 Lakeville v. Tollefson Development, Inc.

• Decision Date: 28 September 1993
• Docket Number: No. C1-93-511,C1-93-511
• Parties: 86 Ed. Law Rep. 411 INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 194 LAKEVILLE, Petitioner, Appellant, v. TOLLEFSON DEVELOPMENT, INC., et al., Respondents.
• Court: Minnesota Court of Appeals

Page 346

506 N.W.2d 346

86 Ed. Law Rep. 411

INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 194 LAKEVILLE, Petitioner, Appellant, v. TOLLEFSON DEVELOPMENT, INC., et al., Respondents.

No. C1-93-511.

Court of Appeals of Minnesota.

Sept. 28, 1993.

Review Denied Nov. 16, 1993.

Syllabus by the Court

The statutory mandate for notice of a condemnation appeal to all "parties of record having an interest in lands described in the appeal" under Minn.Stat. Sec. 117.145 includes notice to parties whose interests may not be adversely affected by the appeal.

Paul C. Ratwik, Jay T. Squires, Ratwik, Roszak, Bergstrom & Maloney, P.A., Minneapolis, for appellant.

Daniel J. Beeson, Elizabeth J. Wolf, Joseph P. Lally, LeVander, Gillen & Miller, P.A., South St. Paul, for respondents.

Considered and decided by FORSBERG, P.J., and PETERSON and THOREEN, JJ.

OPINION

JOHN F. THOREEN, Judge. ^*

Appellant Independent School District No. 194 (the school district) challenges the district court's order denying its motion to dismiss respondents' appeal of a condemnation award under Minn.Stat. Sec. 117.145 (1992) for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. We reverse.

FACTS

In October 1987, respondent Tollefson Development, Inc. (Tollefson), purchased a 154-acre parcel of land from Bernard and Elizabeth Schweich and Mary Schweich by contract for deed. Tollefson acquired the property for single-family residential development.

In May 1990, Tollefson sold its vendees' interest in the property to respondent Indian Hills of Lakeville, Inc. (Indian Hills), by contract for deed. The sole and equal shareholders of Indian Hills are Carl Tollefson and Norman Vogelpohl. Norwest Bank held a mortgage on the property which was subsequently assigned to Vogelpohl. Bernard and Elizabeth Schweich later asserted an interest in the property under the contract for deed for the equivalent value of one "superior lot" in the Indian Hills Development.

Before development of the property occurred, appellant school district commenced a condemnation proceeding to acquire a 57-acre portion of the Indian Hills development to build a new high school. The district court approved the condemnation and authorized a quick take transfer of title and possession to the school district pursuant to Minn.Stat. Sec. 117.042 (1990). The court appointed commissioners to determine damages.

In December 1991, the district court issued an order in which it found that the Schweichs "have an interest equivalent to one lot in the land being acquired by [the school district]." In April 1992, the court ordered that certain funds remain on deposit with the court to insure payment of the Schweichs' claim.

At the commissioners' hearings, neither Vogelpohl nor the Schweichs presented any evidence as to damages. On September 23, 1992, the commissioners filed an award of $725,000 in damages, as well as a supplemental report determining the value of the "superior lot" for the Schweichs' claim.

Tollefson and Indian Hills appealed the award and the supplemental valuation, requesting a de novo jury trial. They filed their notice of appeal with the district court and served the notice of appeal on the school district within the required time but did not serve Vogelpohl or the Schweichs.

On January 8, 1993, after the time for appeal had expired, the school district moved to dismiss the appeal, claiming that the court lacked subject matter jurisdiction because parties of record having an interest in the land at issue, Vogelpohl and the Schweichs, had not been served as required by Minn.Stat. Sec. 117.145. The court denied the motion.

ISSUE

Did the district court err in ruling that the failure to serve the notice of appeal on co-condemnees whose interests would not be adversely affected by the appeal did not deprive the court of jurisdiction?

ANALYSIS

Minn.Stat. Sec. 117.145 (1992) provides the procedure for appeal of a condemnation commission award:

At any time within 40 days from the date that the [commissioners'] report has been filed, any party to the proceedings may appeal to the district court from any award of damages * * * by filing with the court administrator a notice of such appeal and mailing a copy of such notice to all parties of record having an interest in lands described in the appeal.

This court recently considered the jurisdictional requirements for perfecting an appeal pursuant to section 117.145. Judd v. State, 488 N.W.2d 843 (Minn.App.1992). Filing the notice of appeal within the 40-day statutory period is clearly a jurisdictional requirement. Id. at 844 (citing State v. Goins, 286 Minn. 54, 57, 174 N.W.2d 231, 233, (1970)). We also held that, because the statute clearly and unambiguously provided that the notice of appeal be filed and mailed, mailing is also a jurisdictional requirement. Id. (importance of mailing for jurisdictional purposes borne out by statute's provision that cross appeal rights commence upon mailing). Respondents note that the landowner in Judd failed to serve the notice of appeal on the condemnor, as opposed to non-adversary co-condemnees. However, we conclude this distinction is not significant. The issue is not, as Tollefson and Indian Hills suggest, merely one of personal jurisdiction.

Tollefson and Indian Hills assert that because Vogelpohl's and the Schweichs' interests would not be adversely affected by the appeal, Minn.Stat. Sec. 117.145 requiring that notice be mailed to "all parties of record having an...