Matter v. Nelson
| Decision Date | 03 December 1991 |
| Docket Number | No. C8-91-663,C8-91-663 |
| Citation | 478 N.W.2d 211 |
| Parties | Mark A. MATTER, et al., Respondents, v. Gary NELSON, et al., Appellants. |
| Court | Minnesota Court of Appeals |
Syllabus by the Court
1. An action is not barred by the statute of limitations where the damage followed construction of an additional component to a drainage system and the suit was filed within two years of injury and within ten years of that improvement to real property.
2. Where there is evidence to support a finding of unreasonable drainage or misuse of a drainage easement, there is a basis for nuisance liability.
3. In the absence of evidence showing necessity, abatement in the form of a more elaborate drainage system may not be ordered.
4. Where there is no evidence showing deliberate disregard for the rights or safety of others, it is not error to deny punitive damages.
Arthur C. Benson, Harvey, Sheehan & Benson, Minneapolis, for respondents.
John F. Bonner III, Brian R. Martens, Bonner Law Offices, Minneapolis, for appellants.
Considered and decided by DAVIES, P.J., and PARKER and FOLEY, * JJ.
Appellants claim that respondents' nuisance action for water damage is barred by the statute of limitations and that the trial court erred in finding nuisance liability and awarding damages. Respondents challenge the trial court's denial of punitive damages. On these issues, we affirm. Appellants also claim the trial court abused its discretion in ordering installation of an underground pipe as a means of abatement. On this issue, we reverse.
Appellants Gary and Nadine Nelson own a mobile home park adjacent to property of respondents Mark and Caroline Matter in Watertown. The Nelsons purchased their mobile home park in 1980, at which time a storm water drainage system for 30 units discharged through a single culvert located 20 feet above lots 9 and 10. Prior to 1984, these lots were unimproved and the water simply drained down and across the vacant land. Homes were built on the lower properties in 1984 and 1985. The Matters own lot 10 and the Skochenskis own lot 9.
The City of Watertown informed the Nelsons in 1984 and early 1985 that certain improvements to their storm water drainage system might be necessary to avoid damages to lots 9 and 10. The Nelsons took no immediate action following that notification. In May 1986, however, Mr. Skochenski lodged a complaint with the Nelsons and the city about continuing damage resulting from excess water drainage from the mobile home park. In response, the Nelsons constructed a swale on a 20-foot wide drainage easement they hold across lots 9 and 10. This involved some excavation, installation of a grate and gravel, and sodding.
No further problems were reported until March 1989, at which time an "ice dam" diverted water out of the swale and across the Matters' property, causing significant erosion. The Nelsons have not taken remedial action.
The Matters brought alternative claims for negligence, nuisance, and trespass against the Nelsons, and sought punitive damages. The court found in favor of the Matters on nuisance, awarding judgment in the amount of $8,555.55, denying punitive damages. Further, the Nelsons were ordered to abate the nuisance by extending the park's drainage system underground along the drainage easement and underneath an adjacent road.
Pursuant to the Nelsons' motion for amended findings or a new trial, the trial court issued amended findings, but denied the request for a new trial and denied the Matters' renewed request for punitive damages. The Nelsons now appeal the court's finding of nuisance, its award of damages, and its order for abatement in the form of an underground extension of the drainage system. Appellants also claim the Matters' action is barred by the statute of limitations. Respondents challenge the court's denial of punitive damages.
1. Is respondents' nuisance cause of action barred by the two-year improvement-to-property statute of limitations?
2. Did the trial court err in finding appellants liable in nuisance?
3. Did the trial court abuse its discretion in ordering abatement of the nuisance through extension of the drainage system?
4. Did the trial court err in denying punitive damages?
The scope of this court's review is limited to a determination of whether the trial court's findings are clearly erroneous, either without substantial support or based on an erroneous conclusion of law. Warthan v. Midwest Consol. Ins. Agencies, 450 N.W.2d 145, 147 (Minn.App.1990). This court does not defer to the trial court's ultimate conclusions of law. Durfee v. Rod Baxter Imports, Inc., 262 N.W.2d 349, 354 (Minn.1977).
Minn.Stat. § 541.051, subd. 1 (1988), provides that any tort action for damage arising out of a defective and unsafe improvement to real property shall be brought no more than two years after discovery of the injury, and that such a cause of action shall accrue no more than ten years after substantial completion of the construction.
The property damage at issue resulted from surface water collected from the mobile home park. The construction of the swale in 1986 was an improvement to real property designed to address the problem of that water discharge. The swale is an additional component of the entire drainage system and is central to this suit. Thus, the construction of the swale starts the clock running, not the initial drainage system construction in 1973.
Respondents filed suit on October 26, 1989, within a year after injury to their property. The suit was also filed within ten years of the swale's construction. Thus, respondents' cause of action is not barred by the statute of limitations.
Appellants contend the trial court erred in finding appellants liable on a nuisance theory. The court did not issue findings on the alternate theories of negligence and trespass. In its amended Order and Memorandum, the court made clear that negligence arguments were irrelevant to the court's conclusions. This court need only review whether the trial court's determination of nuisance was clearly erroneous or without support in the record.
Minnesota employs the doctrine of reasonable use when evaluating nuisance in the context of water drainage. Highview N. Apartments v. County of Ramsey, 323 N.W.2d 65, 71 (Minn.1982); see Sheehan v. Flynn, 59 Minn. 436, 441, 61 N.W. 462, 463 (1894). Reasonable use is a flexible doctrine, presenting a question of fact to be resolved according to the circumstances of each case. Sachs v. Chiat, 281 Minn. 540, 546, 162 N.W.2d 243, 247 (1968).
In Highview, the supreme court explained the interplay between nuisance law and the balancing test to be employed with the reasonable use doctrine. Highview, 323 N.W.2d at 70-71. In Minnesota, the nuisance cause of action is codified in Minn.Stat. § 561.01 (1988). The statute codifies an equitable cause of action which implicitly recognizes a need to balance the utility of appellants' actions against the harm to respondents. In the case of drainage, the balancing is between the necessary diversion of surface water and its effect on the property below. See Highview, 323 N.W.2d at 71. A nuisance action may prevail only if a party's actions with respect to drainage are found to be unreasonable. See id. at 72-73.
The reasonable use doctrine says that, if certain conditions are met, a landowner acting in good faith has the right to drain surface water and cast the water upon the burdened land of a neighbor. 1 See Sheehan, 59 Minn. at 442-43, 61 N.W. at 463.
These conditions include:
1) there is a reasonable necessity for the drainage;
2) care is taken to avoid unnecessary injury to the burdened land;
3) the utility or benefit accruing to the drained land outweighs the gravity of the harm resulting to the burdened land; and
4) the drainage is accomplished by reasonably improving and aiding the natural drainage system, or if, in the absence of a practical natural drain, a reasonable and feasible artificial drainage system is adopted.
Highview, 323 N.W.2d at 71. Furthermore,
"reasonable use" requires not only that the defendants' improvement be reasonably necessary and that the benefit exceeds the harm, but that the improvement avoid unnecessary harm to others.
Although the trial court did not include an explicit "reasonable use" analysis or balancing in its order, consideration of reasonable use was implicit in the court's findings and conclusions. An implicit finding of unreasonable use was permitted by the supreme court in Highview. Id. at 72.
The trial court's order referred to three letters written by the City of Watertown to the Nelsons, putting them on notice that their current method of drainage would likely be insufficient. At trial, the court stated:
I believe [the letters] are relevant [because] it certainly indicates that the City was aware and Mr. Nelson was aware back in '84, '85 and '86 of the potential problem with the run-off from this mobile home park.
Skochenski testified that drainage from the Nelsons' property caused him significant property damage in 1985 and early 1986. The Nelsons responded to this notice by constructing the swale rather than by pursuing the more substantial underground method suggested by the city. After constructing the swale, the Nelsons received a further complaint from Skochenski. He testified at trial:
When they built the swale, the first rain after the swale was built, they didn't dig it deep enough at the top of [Matter's] property and we had since put black dirt and seeded our backyard. It rained and washed that out on the road. They came back again and dug it deeper at the top, but as the water comes down the swale, when it comes fast enough, either in the spring melt or heavy rain, it overflows the banks every time. We have got damage there now along the side of our driveway.
Further evidence included Matter's testimony that water was continuing to...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Wold v. United States
...for any damage resulting from a failure to maintain or repair an easement, absent a separate agreement. See Matter v. Nelson, 478 N.W.2d 211, 214 n.1 (Minn. Ct. App. 1991). There is no allegation of an agreement that the United States would remove the ice and snow in this case. Thus, the Co......
-
Aeshliman v. Smisek
...swale was an additional component of the drainage ditch, because it was designed to address the problem of water discharge. 478 N.W.2d 211, 213 (Minn. App. 1991). The present scenario is analogous to Matter, which governs here. The structures were an improvement to real property. Alternativ......
-
Nassar v. Chamoun
...everyone who "may have contributed to the arising of the cause of action." Id. at 903. Appellants argue that, under Matter v. Nelson, 478 N.W.2d 211 (Minn. App. 1991), a property owner "has a continuing duty to take reasonable measure[s] to protect the owners of adjoining property from harm......
-
Knoll v. MTS Trucking, Inc.
...Inc., 716 N.W.2d 394, 401 (Minn. App. 2006) (sedimentation pond), review denied (Minn. Sept. 19, 2006); Matter v.Nelson, 478 N.W.2d 211, 213 (Minn. App. 1991) (drainage swale); Johnson v. Steele-Waseca-Coop. Elec., 469 N.W.2d 517, 519 (Minn. App. 1991) (installation of electrical equipment ......