Sargent Cnty. Water Res. Dist. v. Beck

• Docket Number: 20220357
• Decision Date: 15 December 2023
• Parties: Sargent County Water Resource District, a North Dakota Political Subdivision, Plaintiff, Appellee, and Cross-Appellant v. Gregory S. Beck and Carol L. Beck, as Co-Trustees of the Gregory S. Beck and Carol L. Beck Revocable Living Trust dated September 8, 2020, Gerald P. Bosse and Diana Bosse, as Co-Trustees of the Gerald and Diana Bosse Irrevocable Land Trust dated the 13th day of January, 2021, Gerald P. Bosse, Diana Bosse, Mathew J. Bosse, Brent P. Bosse, and all other persons unknown claiming an estate or interest in or lien or encumbrance upon the real property described in the Complaint, whether as heirs, legatees, devisees, personal representatives, creditors or otherwise, Defendants v. and v. Paul Mathews as Personal Representative of the Estate of Nancy I. Mathews, Phyllis Delahoyde, and Daniel G. Delahoyde, Defendants, Appellants, and Cross-Appellees
• Court: North Dakota Supreme Court

1

2023 ND 230

Sargent County Water Resource District, a North Dakota Political Subdivision, Plaintiff, Appellee, and Cross-Appellant
v.
Gregory S. Beck and Carol L. Beck, as Co-Trustees of the Gregory S. Beck and Carol L. Beck Revocable Living Trust dated September 8, 2020, Gerald P. Bosse and Diana Bosse, as Co-Trustees of the Gerald and Diana Bosse Irrevocable Land Trust dated the 13th day of January, 2021, Gerald P. Bosse, Diana Bosse, Mathew J. Bosse, Brent P. Bosse, and all other persons unknown claiming an estate or interest in or lien or encumbrance upon the real property described in the Complaint, whether as heirs, legatees, devisees, personal representatives, creditors or otherwise, Defendants

and Paul Mathews as Personal Representative of the Estate of Nancy I. Mathews, Phyllis Delahoyde, and Daniel G. Delahoyde, Defendants, Appellants, and Cross-Appellees

No. 20220357

Supreme Court of North Dakota

December 15, 2023

Appeal from the District Court of Sargent County, Southeast Judicial District, the Honorable Jay A. Schmitz, Judge.

Robert G. Hoy (argued), Stephen J. Hilfer (appeared), and Christopher M. McShane (on brief), West Fargo, ND, for plaintiff, appellee, and crossappellant.

Derrick L. Braaten, Bismarck, ND, for defendants, appellants, and crossappellees.

MCEVERS, JUSTICE.

2

[¶1] Paul Mathews as personal representative of the Estate of Nancy Mathews, Phyllis Delahoyde, and Daniel Delahoyde (collectively, "Landowners") appeal from a judgment condemning their property and an order denying their motion for a new trial. Sargent County Water Resource District ("District") cross-appeals from an order concluding Landowners' arguments were not foreclosed for failure to appeal the District's "Resolution of Necessity" or barred by res judicata or collateral estoppel. We affirm in part, concluding Landowners' arguments are not foreclosed, and reverse in part, concluding the drain project exceeds the maximum maintenance levy authorized by statute requiring the approval of the majority of landowners.

I

[¶2] In June 2021, the District commenced this eminent domain action seeking to acquire permanent and temporary easements over five properties adjacent to Drain 11. Drain 11 is a legal assessment drain in Sargent County that drains into the Upper Wild Rice River. The District sought to acquire the easements for a drainage project identified as the "Drain 11 Improvement Project" ("Project"). Landowners opposed this eminent domain action, asserting the Project is unlawful because it does not constitute "maintenance" and exceeds the six-year maximum maintenance levy without the approval of the majority of landowners. They contended the Project is not for a use authorized by law and condemnation of their property was unnecessary. The District argued Landowners' arguments were foreclosed because they did not appeal the District's "Resolution of Necessity" and their arguments are barred by res judicata or collateral estoppel.

[¶3] After a bench trial, the district court concluded Landowners' arguments are not foreclosed. The court granted condemnation, concluding the Project is for a use authorized by law and the easements sought are necessary for the Project. The court further concluded that no landowner vote was required for

3

the Project under N.D.C.C. § 61-16.1-45 because there was "no evidence the District is obligating the Drain 11 assessment district for costs beyond the four-dollar maximum maintenance levy threshold over a six-year period." The court entered judgment and authorized the District to take possession of the property.

[¶4] In July 2022, Landowners moved for a new trial or to amend judgment, asserting newly discovered evidence. They argued the District's post-judgment board meeting minutes show the Project's cost has increased further beyond the maximum levy, which requires a landowner vote, and the need to condemn their property is speculative given the Project's new plans, which do not include Landowners' property in the initial construction. Landowners maintained that the Project does not constitute "maintenance." The district court denied Landowners' motion, concluding it lacked jurisdiction to amend judgment because it was served and filed more than 28 days after notice of entry of judgment. Further, the court denied the motion for a new trial because Landowners failed to identify newly discovered evidence in existence at the time of trial, which was not reasonably available to them. Landowners appeal, and the District cross-appeals.

II

[¶5] "[W]hen a new trial is sought, the moving party is limited on appeal to the grounds presented to the district court in the motion for a new trial." Prairie Supply, Inc. v. Apple Elec., Inc., 2015 ND 190, ¶ 7, 867 N.W.2d 335. Landowners have preserved the issues they raise on appeal by arguing those grounds to the district court in their new trial motion.

[¶6] In an appeal from a bench trial, the district court's conclusions of law are fully reviewable and its findings of fact are reviewed under the clearly erroneous standard of review. W. Energy Corp. v. Stauffer, 2019 ND 26, ¶ 5, 921 N.W.2d 431. A finding of fact is clearly erroneous if it is induced by an erroneous view of the law, if there is no evidence to support it, or if after reviewing all of the evidence, we are convinced a mistake has been made. Id.

4

III

[¶7] The District argues the district court erred by allowing Landowners to challenge the legality of the Project in this eminent domain action. The District contends Landowners' arguments are foreclosed under res judicata or collateral estoppel, and for failure to appeal the "Resolution of Necessity" to the district court under N.D.C.C. § 61-16.1-54. The District asserts Landowners' arguments were already raised and rejected in Banderet v. Sargent County Water Resource District, 2019 ND 57, 923 N.W.2d 809.

[¶8] In Banderet, landowners-including Paul Mathews and Nancy Mathews-brought a declaratory and injunctive relief action to prevent the District from proceeding on the Project. 2019 ND 57, ¶ 5. They sought a judgment declaring that the Project "cannot be funded as maintenance within six years at $4 per acre being assessed" to them and that they are entitled to a hearing and vote on the Project. Id. The District moved to dismiss the complaint for failure to appeal its adoption of the resolution of necessity within 30 days. Id. at ¶ 6. The district court dismissed the action for lack of appellate subject matter jurisdiction. Id. This Court affirmed the dismissal, concluding the time for appealing the resolution of necessity expired. Id. at ¶¶ 17, 19. The Court emphasized that it "has consistently held an aggrieved party must appeal a local governing body's decision rather than seek injunctive or declaratory relief against the enforcement of the decision." Id. at ¶ 12 (emphasis added).

A

[¶9] The District argues the same result in Banderet should result in this case because Landowners did not appeal the "Resolution of Necessity" to the district court. Under N.D.C.C. § 61-16.1-54, an aggrieved person may appeal an order or decision of the water resource board to the district court, which is governed by the procedure in N.D.C.C. § 28-34-01. Under N.D.C.C. § 28-34-01(1), the notice of appeal must be filed with the court within 30 days after the decision. The resolution of necessity, outlining the Project's scope and need, was adopted in 2016, and Landowners did not timely appeal that decision. Thus, the issue

5

before us is whether Landowners' arguments are foreclosed for failing to timely appeal the "Resolution of Necessity" to the district court.

[¶10] In Banderet, the landowners brought a declaratory and injunctive relief action to prevent the Project from proceeding. Here, the District brought an eminent domain action seeking to condemn Landowners' property. Landowners' arguments that the Project is unlawful are therefore raised in opposition to the District's action to take their property. Our reasoning in Banderet specifically relied upon the type of action brought and who brought the action:

This Court has consistently held an aggrieved party must appeal a local governing body's decision rather than seek injunctive or declaratory relief against the enforcement of the decision. See Hector v. City of Fargo, 2014 ND 53, ¶ 23, 844 N.W.2d 542 (Stating "a statutory appeal provides an adequate legal remedy for reviewing a local governing body's decision, and in those cases where an appeal is authorized by law, an action for equitable relief generally is not available."); Anderson v. Richland Cty. Water Res. Bd., 506 N.W.2d 362, 365 (N.D. 1993) (Stating "landowners' declaratory judgment action was inappropriate because N.D.C.C. § 28-34-01 'governs any appeal . . . from the decision of a local governing body.'"); Olson v. Cass Cty., 253 N.W.2d 179, 182 (N.D. 1977) (Holding "[i]f the grievance of the person challenging a board's decision is of a type that could have been fairly litigated on appeal, then that statutory appeal is an adequate legal remedy, and no suit for injunction will lie as a substitute."); Chester v. Einarson, 76 N.D. 205, 219, 34 N.W.2d 418, 427-28 (1948) (Holding "[w]here the law provides an appeal from an order or determination of a board or commission whereby the correctness and validity of the order or decision may be reviewed the remedy so provided, if adequate, must be pursued and a party having the right of appeal may not disregard the remedy and obtain injunctive relief against the enforcement of the order or decision."). ....

In this case, similar to Olson, the Landowners sought declaratory and injunctive relief, arguing the District ignored

6

statutory requirements relating to a public hearing and landowner vote after adopting the resolution of necessity for the Drain 11 project. The Landowners

...