Minneapolis Community Development Agency, Matter of, C5-89-913
| Citation | 447 N.W.2d 891 |
| Decision Date | 14 November 1989 |
| Docket Number | No. C5-89-913,C5-89-913 |
| Parties | In the Matter of Condemnation by the MINNEAPOLIS COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AGENCY of Certain Lands in the City of Minneapolis. |
| Court | Court of Appeals of Minnesota |
Syllabus by the Court
1. The landowner in a condemnation proceeding is entitled to interest on funds deposited with the court under the quick-take statute until those funds are available to the landowner.
2. The trial court's award of costs and disbursements, including expert witness and appraisal fees, was permitted by statute and not a clear abuse of discretion.
John M. LeFevre, Jr. and Mary G. Dobbins, Holmes & Graven, Chartered, Minneapolis, for appellant, Minneapolis Community Development Agency.
Jerrold M. Hartke, Hartke Law Firm, South St. Paul, for respondent, Riverbluff Development Co.
Heard, considered and decided by NORTON, P.J., and LANSING and FLEMING, * JJ.
The Minneapolis Community Development Agency (MCDA) appeals the judgment awarding interest, costs and disbursements, including expert witness and appraisal fees, to Riverbluff Development Company in a condemnation proceeding. We affirm the award of costs and disbursements, including the witness and appraisal fees. We reverse a portion of the interest award and remand to the district court for recomputation of the judgment.
Riverbluff Development Company owned property in downtown Minneapolis known as the Crown Mill and Annex and the Minneapolis Boilerworks. MCDA initiated a condemnation proceeding against Riverbluff in November, 1984. On March 20, 1985, MCDA moved for and obtained title and possession of Riverbluff's properties under the quick-take provisions of Minn.Stat. Sec. 117.042 (1984). The order was conditioned on MCDA's deposit with the court of $1,089,183, the approved appraisal value of the properties. The order directed the court administrator to pay from the deposit any encumbrances and other obligations associated with the property as of the transfer date.
MCDA deposited the money with the court administrator on March 29, 1985. The court administrator deposited the funds in a 5.5% interest-bearing account. See Minn.Stat. Sec. 117.042 (1984). Riverbluff requested disbursement of the funds but the district court denied its petitions because of the uncertainty of obligations associated with the properties. On June 7, 1985, the district court ordered the funds transferred to a certificate of deposit, which apparently earned interest at a higher rate. On December 9, 1985, the court ordered distribution of the funds.
The court-appointed commissioners held extensive hearings between October, 1985 and September, 1987. The commissioners awarded Riverbluff $1,083,600 as compensation for the properties taken. Both parties appealed to the district court and the matter was tried to a jury in October, 1988.
The jury awarded compensation of $1,122,000. This amount exceeded the commissioner's award by $38,400 and exceeded the deposited amount by $32,817. The district court ordered judgment in the amount of $1,122,000 plus interest from the date of taking. The court also awarded Riverbluff $76,514 for expert witness and appraisal fees, together with costs and disbursements. After entry of judgment incorporating these orders MCDA appealed.
1. Did the trial court err in awarding interest on the entire condemnation award from the date of taking?
2. Did the trial court err in awarding respondent costs and disbursements, including expert witness and appraisal fees?
Interest on a condemnation award is an element of "just compensation." State by Spannaus v. Carney, 309 N.W.2d 775, 776 (Minn.1981). Therefore, as a general rule, a condemnor is liable for interest on the award. This liability is recognized in Minn.Stat. Sec. 117.195 (1988), which provides that all damages shall bear interest at the judgment rate from the date of filing of the commissioners' report or from the date of taking, whichever comes first. The district court followed this statute literally, awarding interest at the judgment rate from the date of taking, March 29, 1985.
Both parties agree that the district court incorrectly computed the award when it failed to take into account the funds previously deposited under the quick-take provisions of Minn.Stat. Sec. 117.042. It is also undisputed that the condemnor is liable for interest on the difference between the final award and the lesser deposited amount, computed from the date of taking. The parties disagree, however, on the condemnor's liability for interest on the deposited amount. MCDA argues that it owed no interest on the deposited funds because the deposit was equivalent to payment. Riverbluff argues that MCDA continued to be liable for interest on the deposit until the funds were released to them.
This issue was addressed in Fine v. City of Minneapolis, 368 N.W.2d 324 (Minn.Ct.App.1985), aff'd in part, rev'd in part, 391 N.W.2d 853 (Minn.1986). In Fine, the condemnor deposited with the court an amount equal to the appraised value of the property pursuant to the quick-take statute. The landowner chose to negotiate and to defer disbursement of the funds until the parties were able to stipulate their rights and responsibilities. The district court subsequently approved the parties' stipulation and ordered disbursal of the funds without interest. On appeal, both of the appellate courts affirmed the disallowance of interest. The supreme court reasoned that the owner's immediate entitlement to these funds obviates an award of interest on the deposited monies.
Fine is unlike the present case in that Riverbluff was not immediately entitled to monies deposited by MCDA. The reasoning in Fine, however, is instructive. The Fine court's reliance on the availability of the funds, rather than the fact that the funds had been deposited, indicates that the act of depositing monies does not absolve the condemnor of interest liability. The language in Fine implies that interest liability continues until the landowner becomes entitled to the deposited funds.
Such a rule makes sense. When the funds are available to the landowner, the landowner has the option of reinvesting them. If the funds are earning low interest, it is the landowner's responsibility, not the condemnor's. On the other hand, when the funds are not available, the landowner has no choice; the rate of return is governed exclusively by the court administrator under Minn.Stat. Sec. 117.042(b). If the funds are earning low interest, the landowner suffers a loss. It is more reasonable the condemnor should bear the burden of the loss. See 13 Uniform Laws Annotated, Model Eminent Domain Code, Sec. 1202(b) and comment; see also Shelton Sewer Authority v. DeFilippo, 2 Conn.App. 355, 478 A.2d 623, 627 (1984). The condemnor need not take property under the quick-take statute if it finds this liability onerous.
Applying this rule, Riverbluff is entitled to additional interest on the deposited funds. The funds were deposited on March 29, 1985, when the judgment rate was nine percent. Minn.Stat. Sec. 549.09. They were controlled by the court at varying rates of interest until December 9, 1985, when Riverbluff became entitled to the principal plus interest which accrued at these varying rates. Riverbluff is entitled to interest on the funds during this withholding period at a rate of return which represents the difference between the judgment rate and the actual rate earned, assuming this differential reflects interest lost rather than interest gained. 1 Additionally, Riverbluff is entitled to interest on the difference between the final award and the lesser deposited amount, computed from the date of taking. The district court's interest award, to the extent that it recognizes other interest entitlements, is erroneous.
Costs and Disbursements, Including Expert Witness and
MCDA also challenges the district court's allowance of costs. The allowance of costs in eminent domain's proceedings is purely statutory. State by Spannaus v. Carter, 300 Minn. 495, 497, 221 N.W.2d 106, 107 (1974). The issues raised by MCDA are governed by Minn.Stat. Sec. 117.175, subd. 2 (1988), which provides:
The court may, in its discretion, after a verdict has been rendered on the trial of an appeal, allow as taxable costs reasonable expert witness fees and appraisal fees of the owner, together with the owner's reasonable costs and disbursements. No expert witness fees, costs, or disbursements shall be awarded to the petitioner regardless of who is the prevailing party.
MCDA first argues that none of the costs are taxable because Riverbluff was not a "prevailing party." MCDA recognizes that ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State by Humphrey v. Baillon Co.
...N.W.2d 205, 207 (Minn.1978); State by Spannaus v. Carter, 300 Minn. 495, 497, 221 N.W.2d 106, 107 (1974); In re Minneapolis Community Dev. Agency, 447 N.W.2d 891, 894 (Minn.App.1989), pet. for rev. denied (Minn. Jan. 12, 1990); Finally, the MEAJA was not enacted until 1986; 1986 Minn.Laws c......
-
Disciplinary Action Against Getty, In re, C8-85-2372
...... Law Offices, Paris DonRay Getty, Minneapolis, pro se. William J. Wernz, ... Kern's son in 1985 in a juvenile matter on an expenses-only basis. Respondent agreed to ......
-
Town of White Bear v. Stoddard
...v. Baillon Co., 480 N.W.2d 673 (Minn. App. 1992), review denied (Minn. Mar. 26, 1992) (Baillon Co.); In re Condemnation by Minneapolis Cmty. Dev. Agency, 447 N.W.2d 891 (Minn. App. 1989), review denied (Minn. Jan. 12, 1990) (MCDA). The Stoddards' reliance on these cases is misplaced. In Bai......
-
In re Condemnation by City of Minneapolis, C5-99-1996.
...for and obtains a court order disbursing the funds, citing a court of appeals decision, In re Condemnation by the Minneapolis Cmty. Dev. Agency, 447 N.W.2d 891 (Minn.App.1989) ("MCDA"), rev. denied, (Minn. Jan. 12, 1990). In MCDA, the condemning authority deposited quick take funds with the......