Rettman v. City of Litchfield, C1-83-1091
| Decision Date | 31 August 1984 |
| Docket Number | No. C1-83-1091,C1-83-1091 |
| Citation | 354 N.W.2d 426 |
| Parties | Edward RETTMAN, Jr., Respondent, v. CITY OF LITCHFIELD, et al., Appellants. |
| Court | Minnesota Supreme Court |
Syllabus by the Court
1. There must be a strong showing of benefit actually received by a city as a whole to allow recovery under quasi-contract for work performed on improvements governed by Minn.Stat. ch. 429 (1982), Local Improvements, Special Assessments.
2. The evidence in this case is practically conclusive against the jury's finding that the city as a whole actually received a benefit from the installation of a water main that served 19 city lots.
3. A general allegation of increased taxes, resulting, in part, from a local improvement, is insufficient to establish prima facie a benefit actually received by the city.
George H. Neperud, Litchfield, for appellants.
Brian M. Olsen, Cokato, for respondent.
Considered and decided by the court en banc without oral argument.
This appeal raises the issue of whether quasi-contractual relief is available to a provider of services for a project initiated under Minn.Stat. ch. 429 (1982), governing local improvements and assessments, where the parties failed to comply with the procedures mandated by chapter 429. The jury found that the City of Litchfield (hereinafter city) had led plaintiff Edward Rettman to believe he was hired to install a water main extension on his development property, that the city had benefited from Rettman's work, and that he was entitled to recover the cost of the installation plus interest. The city appeals from an order denying its motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict or a new trial. We reverse.
Edward Rettman, a contractor and developer, gained city approval to plat a parcel of land he owned within the city limits into 19 residential lots to be known as Quiet View Acres. Because he was an experienced ditching contractor, he installed sewer and water lines within the development himself according to city specifications. The dispute in this case arose over the installation of the extension to the city water main from its former end point, approximately 2 blocks from Rettman's development, to connect with the water lines within the development.
In August 1978, Rettman petitioned the Litchfield City Council to approve the water main extension as an improvement under Minn.Stat. ch. 429. Such approval would make the installation a city project, the cost of which could then be assessed to those who benefited from the improvement. The initial, statutorily required public hearing on the petition was held in September 1978, and the city council approved the project over the protests of three of the four other potentially benefited property owners. After this hearing, the city dropped chapter 429 proceedings based on the understanding of council members and city employees that Rettman was going to do the work himself at no expense to the city to save time and money, with the hope of recouping the installation cost in the sale of the lots. Competitive bidding procedures mandated by chapter 429 were not followed, and there was no written contract.
Rettman testified that he never intended to install the water main extension at his own expense and that he thought throughout that the city was following the special assessment statute. He also testified that William Steinberg, an employee of the Litchfield Public Utilities Commission (hereinafter PUC), told him that he was low bidder on the job, based on an unsealed bid submitted without a bid bond, and that he could begin work. Rettman began work. Steinberg allowed him to use materials (pipe, etc.) that the city had on hand. Evidence at trial showed that in the past the city had supplied materials to contractors in order to expedite projects and had then billed the contractor for the cost of the materials.
The water main extension was completed by the early months of 1980. It served only the 19 lots in the development, Quiet View Acres, and does not have the capacity to be further extended. Steinberg died in May 1981, and it was not until the following fall that a PUC employee found the list of materials furnished to Rettman. The PUC forwarded the list to the city, which sent a bill to Rettman for $11,120.66 on January 2, 1982. Rettman's only response was to send a bill to the city for $16,522.50 for installation of the water main extension.
As he sold lots in Quiet View Acres, Rettman told buyers and the real estate agent who handled some of the sales that the water and sewer were in and paid for and that there would be no future assessments for those services. He testified at trial that he knew there would be an assessment for the water main extension but that he intended to pay the entire amount assessed against the Quiet View Acres property.
Rettman brought suit against the city on theories of contract, quasi-contract, and negligence for the $16,522.50 cost of installation. He also alleged willful indifference to his rights and asked punitive damages. The city counterclaimed for the $11,120.66 worth of materials it had furnished to Rettman for the project, the $1,600 it had spent on repairs because of defective installation of the water main, and the $3,646.55 it had spent resurfacing the street torn up by Rettman in making the installation. The city has not appealed from the denial of its counterclaim but does raise the following issues:
1) whether quasi-contractual relief is available to Rettman for providing services for a project initiated under Minn.Stat. ch. 429 where the parties failed to comply with the mandates of that chapter;
2) whether the evidence supports recovery in quasi-contract even if such a remedy is available.
A third issue as to whether the jury award of prejudgment interest was appropriate, and Rettman's issue, raised by notice of review, with regard to an award of attorney fees under Minn.Stat. Sec. 549.21 (1982), we need not address because of our decision in the case.
1. We note at the outset that, on the record before us, the only theory on which Rettman may possibly recover is that of quasi-contract. Any express contract Rettman may have had with the city was void for lack of compliance with the bidding procedures required by statute. Layne Minnesota Co. v. Town of Stuntz, 257 N.W.2d 295 (Minn.1977). Our cases set out the rule, however, that a contractor may recover under the theory of quasi-contract where the city had the power to contract but failed to comply with statutorily required...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Kidwell v. Sybaritic Inc, No. A07-584
...court's review of jury findings ... is the premise that there must exist some evidence to support the verdict”); Rettman v. City of Litchfield, 354 N.W.2d 426, 429 (Minn.1984) (reversing jury verdict because evidence was “practically conclusive against the jury finding” on question of fact)......
-
Obst v. Microtron, Inc.
...the evidence is practically conclusive against the verdict, [this court] will not set the verdict aside.'" Rettman v. City of Litchfield, 354 N.W.2d 426, 429 (Minn.1984) (quoting Sandhofer v. Abbott-Northwestern Hospital, 283 N.W.2d 362, 365 (Minn. 1979)) (other citations omitted). The evid......
-
Benson v. Northwest Airlines, Inc.
...has been denied, we must affirm if there is any competent evidence reasonably tending to sustain the verdict. See Rettman v. City of Litchfield, 354 N.W.2d 426, 429 (Minn.1984). Our review is even more limited when the verdict is based on a jury's consideration of the witnesses' demeanor. S......
-
Taney v. Independent School Dist. No. 624
..."if, in the record, `there is any competent evidence reasonably tending to sustain the verdict.'" Id. (quoting Rettman v. City of Litchfield, 354 N.W.2d 426, 429 (Minn.1984)). Further, the reviewing court views the evidence in the light most favorable to the prevailing party; this court wil......