Sandahl v. City Council of Larimore

Decision Date20 July 2016
Docket NumberNo. 20150364.,20150364.
PartiesLonny C. SANDAHL and Lilian K. Sandahl, Appellants, v. CITY COUNCIL OF CITY OF LARIMORE, Appellee.
CourtNorth Dakota Supreme Court

882 N.W.2d 721

Lonny C. SANDAHL and Lilian K. Sandahl, Appellants,
v.
CITY COUNCIL OF CITY OF LARIMORE, Appellee.

No. 20150364.

Supreme Court of North Dakota.

July 20, 2016.


882 N.W.2d 721

Erik A. Escarraman, Grand Forks, N.D., for appellants.

Joseph E. Quinn (argued), Assistant City Attorney, and Daniel L. Gaustad (on brief), City Attorney, Grand Forks, N.D., for appellee.

KAPSNER, Justice.

¶ 1] Lonny and Lilian Sandahl appeal from a judgment denying their request to submit additional evidence and affirming a City of Larimore decision finding a building on their property was dangerous and unsafe and ordering demolition of the building. We conclude the Sandahls' self-represented notice of appeal to the district court was not timely under N.D.C.C. § 28–34–01 and Zajac v. Traill Cty. Water Res. Dist., 2016 ND 134, 881 N.W.2d 666, and we vacate the judgment and remand to the district court to dismiss the appeal.

I

[¶ 2] In September 2014, Larimore served the Sandahls with a notice of a public nuisance and order to repair or demolish buildings on three parcels of their property in Larimore, including a building at 107 Pate Avenue. The Sandahls appeared at a public hearing before the Larimore City Council on March 2, 2015, to contest the designation of the building as a public nuisance. At that meeting, the Larimore City Council determined the building was unsafe and dangerous and ordered demolition of the building. On March 3, 2015, Larimore issued a written decision stating the building was an unsafe and dangerous dwelling and deemed an excessive burden to rehabilitate. Larimore's written decision ordered the Sandahls to demolish the building within thirty days. On March 5, 2015, Larimore issued a notice of findings of fact and order for demolition, and the documents were served on the Sandahls on March 12, 2015, by the sheriff of Grand Forks County.

[882 N.W.2d 722

[¶ 3] On April 13, 2015, the Sandahls filed with the district court a self-represented notice of appeal under N.D.C.C. § 28–34–01, and through counsel, subsequently moved to submit additional evidence under N.D.C.C. § 28–34–01(3). The court denied the Sandahls' motion to submit additional evidence and affirmed Larimore's decision ordering demolition of the building.

II

[¶ 4] Although not raised by Larimore and not examined by the district court, we initially consider a jurisdictional issue involving the timeliness of the Sandahls' appeal to the district court under N.D.C.C. § 28–34–01. An appeal from an administrative decision to a district court invokes that court's appellate jurisdiction, not its original jurisdiction. See Lende v. North Dakota Workers' Comp. Bureau, 1997 ND 178, ¶ 10, 568 N.W.2d 755....

To continue reading

Request your trial
2 cases
  • Brandt v. City of Fargo
    • United States
    • North Dakota Supreme Court
    • 22 Enero 2018
    ...but a statute conferring appellate jurisdiction upon a reviewing court." Sandahl v. City Council of City of Larimore , 2016 ND 155, ¶ 7, 882 N.W.2d 721 (emphasis added); see also Garaas v. Cass Cty. Joint Water Res. Dist. , 2016 ND 148, ¶ 28, 883 N.W.2d 436 ; Zajac v. Traill Cty. Water Res.......
  • Banderet v. Sargent Cnty. Water Res. Dist., 20180253
    • United States
    • North Dakota Supreme Court
    • 26 Febrero 2019
    ...the resolution of necessity expired on November 19, 2016.[¶18] In Sandahl v. City Council of the City of Larimore , 2016 ND 155, ¶ 9, 882 N.W.2d 721, we stated:Our decisions in Zajac and this case recognize an abbreviated time frame for a party to appeal from a decision by a local governing......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT