Park Elm Homeowner's Ass'n v. Mooney

• Decision Date: 06 January 1987
• Docket Number: No. C7-86-1417,C7-86-1417
• Citation: 398 N.W.2d 643
• Parties: PARK ELM HOMEOWNER'S ASSOCIATION, Respondent, v. Beatrice J. MOONEY, Appellant.
• Court: Minnesota Court of Appeals

Page 643

398 N.W.2d 643

PARK ELM HOMEOWNER'S ASSOCIATION, Respondent, v. Beatrice J. MOONEY, Appellant.

No. C7-86-1417.

Court of Appeals of Minnesota.

Jan. 6, 1987.

Syllabus by the Court

1. Trial court lacked jurisdiction to render a judgment adversely affecting the title to registered torrens property, and such judgment was void under Minn.R.Civ.P. 60.02(4).

2. Trial court's determination that member of homeowner's association was liable for assessments was not void for the purposes of Minn.R.Civ.P. 60.02(4).

James A. Stein, Hessian, McKasy & Soderberg, St. Paul, for respondent.

Richard B. Peterson, Donald W. Niles, Doherty, Rumble & Butler, St. Paul, for appellant.

Heard, considered and decided by NIERENGARTEN, P.J., and PARKER and CRIPPEN, JJ.

OPINION

PARKER, Judge.

Beatrice Mooney moved the trial court to vacate, under Minn.R.Civ.P. 60.02(4), a previous judgment granting Park Elm Homeowners Association ownership of property extending from the high-water mark of Mooney's beachfront lot to the edge of Lake St. Croix and awarding the Association judgment against Mooney for assessments charged against her property. The motion was denied. We reverse and remand.

FACTS

Appellant Beatrice Mooney is the owner and occupant of a beachfront lot on Lake St. Croix, a widening of the St. Croix River. Her lot is one of six which together make up "Park Elm," a platted subdivision of the Village of Lake St. Croix Beach in Washington County. The Park Elm Homeowners Association is a properly recorded, duly organized and legally constituted homeowner's association consisting of the six Park Elm landowners, including Mooney.

All of the Association members are subject to the provisions of the Association's articles, bylaws and covenants. Those documents authorize the Association to make capital improvements and maintain certain common areas and to pay for such expenditures by charging assessments against all of the Association members in equal shares. On August 15, 1984, the Association served a summons and complaint upon Mooney, alleging that she was in arrears for assessments in the amount of $2,204.47. Mooney brought counterclaims for trespass and nuisance, alleging that the Association members were trespassing on her beach property. At trial the Association defended against the counterclaims by alleging that Mooney's title reached only as far as the high-water mark and that the land below that mark was available for the use and enjoyment of all the Association members. Mooney's attorney presented nothing to counter the Association's argument.

The trial court adopted the Association's proposed findings of fact, which indicated that the Association had "used and identified as a common beach" the beach adjacent to Mooney's property and that Mooney had "no exclusive ownership right to said property." From these findings, the court concluded that the Association owned and had the right to reasonable use and enjoyment of the property extending from the high water mark of Mooney's lot to the edge of the river and entered judgment accordingly. The judgment also ordered Mooney to pay the assessments charged by the Association plus interest, attorney's fees, costs and disbursements, for a total of $3,930.20.

Mooney's attorney moved for a new trial under Minn.R.Civ.P. 59 on or about May 7, 1985. Because the motion was untimely, it was never ruled on. Mooney then retained a second attorney, who filed a motion to vacate the judgment under Minn.R.Civ.P. 60, but failed to cite any authority for the motion other than the state constitution. This motion was denied. Mooney then retained her present attorneys, who on April 15, 1986, filed a motion under Minn.R.Civ.P. 60.02 and Minn.Stat. ch. 508 requesting the court to vacate the judgment and to direct the Washington County Registrar of Titles to delete from Mooney's torrens title the memorial indicating the judgment's existence. This motion was denied without comment, and Mooney appeals pursuant to Minn.Stat. § 508.29 (1984).

The Association moved this court to dismiss Mooney's appeal, but the motion was denied by order dated September 16, 1986, which stated that an order pursuant to Minn.Stat. ch. 508 is appealable of right. Minn.Stat. §§ 508.29(3) and (4) (1984).

ISSUES

1. Did the trial court err in determining that the Association owned the property between the high-water mark of Mooney's

lot and the edge of the lake and, if so, was the judgment void for the purposes of Minn.R.Civ.P. 60.02(4)?

2. Was that part of the trial court judgment ordering Mooney to pay the assessments charged against her by the Association void for the purposes of Minn.R.Civ.P. 60.02(4)?

ANALYSIS

I

Mooney alleges that the original trial court judgment was void in that it altered her torrens title in derogation of the Torrens Act, Minn.Stat. ch. 508, by granting the Association ownership of the land from the high-water mark on Mooney's lot to the St. Croix. The Association argues that because Mooney's title did not extend past the high-water mark, it was not affected by the judgment. Thus, we must determine initially whether Mooney's property ends at the high-water mark or extends all the way to the St. Croix.

Mooney's property was registered through a torrens decree in 1975. The certificate of title shows that Mooney is the registered owner of Lot 6, Block 2, "Park Elm." The drawing of this plat shows that Lot 6 is one of three lots therein which have been platted all the way to the edge of Lake St. Croix. All information on the plat drawing is consistent with Lot 6 being platted to the edge of the water as it existed at that time. The easterly line of Lot 6 is an irregular line, as would be the case with a water boundary. The dimensions along the north and south lines of Lot 6 contain a plus or a minus distance to the water. The very small printing on the plat reads, "Water Surface Elevation 677.94 (11-8-72)." All of these facts are consistent with the surveyor platting to the edge of the St. Croix as it then existed. More significantly, the drawing does not show any strip of land between Lot 6 and the St. Croix.

The first memorial on Mooney's certificate of title further supports her position that Lot 6 extends to the edge of the St. Croix. This memorial is of the order and decree of registration filed when the land was first registered. It recites the existence of a mortgage against the land and then states that Lot 6 is

[s]ubject to the proprietary and sovereign rights of the State of Minnesota in all that portion of the land lying below the natural ordinary high-water mark of the St. Croix River; not intending, however, to deprive the fee owners of the usual riparian rights that attach to the land riparian to a navigable public body of water incident to the ownership thereof.

The general rule concerning the rights of a riparian landowner in this state is well settled. "The riparian owner's title extends to the low-water mark." State v. Slotness, 289 Minn. 485, 486, 185 N.W.2d 530, 532 (1971). "His main right--on which other rights depend and which often constitutes the principal value of property so situated--is an exclusive right of access to the water in front of his land." Id. at 487, 185 N.W.2d at 532. Thus, the above language in the memorial indicates that the State did not intend to deprive Mooney of her title extending to the low-water mark.

The Association asserts that Mooney's title extends only to the high-water mark of the St. Croix. This contention rests primarily on the Association's interpretation of the legal description contained in the dedication clause of the plat of Park Elm. It is true, as the Association points out, that the description goes "to the high-water line on the West shore of Lake St. Croix." However, the next "call" goes "thence Northerly along the lake shore to a point 1,417.6 feet South of the North line of said section" (emphasis added). These two calls are inconsistent, because the first goes to the high-water line and the second proceeds along the lake shore for a certain distance. The reference to the lake shore clearly means along the current edge of the water and does not mean along the high-water line. Moreover, in the plat drawing the surveyor interpreted this legal description to go to the then-existing shore of the St. Croix. If the description in the dedication clause of the plat had been construed to go only to the high-water line of the St. Croix, it would have been incumbent on the surveyor to label the East boundary line of Lot 6 as the high-water line of the St. Croix.

We note also that there was absolutely no basis for the trial court to conclude that the Association owns the property between the high-water mark and...