Stenger v. State, CX-89-1393
| Decision Date | 26 December 1989 |
| Docket Number | No. CX-89-1393,CX-89-1393 |
| Citation | 449 N.W.2d 483 |
| Parties | John STENGER, et al., Petitioners, Appellants, v. STATE of Minnesota, et al., Respondents. |
| Court | Minnesota Court of Appeals |
Syllabus by the Court
Absent a showing of unique circumstances and a direct and substantial invasion of property rights resulting in a definite and measurable diminution of the market value of property, the owner of property adjacent to a public water access site is not entitled to inverse condemnation.
Paul H. Tanis, Jr., Mackenzie, Gustafson, Lucas & Riley, Ltd., St. Peter, for appellants.
Hubert H. Humphrey, III, Atty. Gen., A.W. Clapp, III, Sp. Asst. Atty. Gen., St. Paul, for respondents.
Heard, considered and decided by FOLEY, P.J., and KALITOWSKI and STONE *, JJ.
Appellants John and Elizabeth Stenger appeal from summary judgment which denied a writ of mandamus to allow an inverse condemnation action. Respondents' motion, which requested dismissal of appellants' petition for failure to state a claim upon which relief could be granted, was treated by all parties as one for summary judgment in accordance with Minn.R.Civ.Proc. 12.02 (1988).
Appellants purchased property on Lake Washington in Le Sueur County in 1976. They intended to build a permanent retirement home on the property. In 1983 the Department of Natural Resources (DNR) began discussions with local officials to find an area for a public water access site. Public comment on the addition of a new access was invited in the spring of 1984. Appellants wrote a letter to the DNR on June 22, 1984, expressing their concern with the location of the proposed public access next to their property. Appellants claimed in their letter that the access site would have an adverse impact on the valuation and privacy of the property. The access site was acquired through a condemnation action which was completed on December 12, 1984. The public access opened on May 27, 1986. Following the condemnation action, appellants listed their undeveloped property for sale and the property was eventually sold on a contract for deed on December 1, 1986.
Did the trial court err in granting summary judgment for the state on appellants' action for inverse condemnation?
An appellate court will review an order for summary judgment to determine if there are any issues of material fact and whether the trial court erred in its application of the law. Offerdahl v. University of Minnesota Hospitals & Clinics, 426 N.W.2d 425, 427 (Minn.1988). Where there is any doubt as to the existence of an issue of material fact, the doubt must be resolved in favor of finding that an issue of fact exists. Harvet v. Unity Medical Center, Inc., 428 N.W.2d 574, 578 (Minn.Ct.App.1988).
Actions for inverse condemnation must be brought through an action in mandamus. Thomsen v. State, 284 Minn. 468, 474, 170 N.W.2d 575, 580 (1969). Appellants must show harm which is "direct, substantial, and peculiar to them in that it differs markedly from the damage suffered by the public at large." Alevizos v. Metropolitan Airports Commission, 298 Minn. 471, 485, 216 N.W.2d 651, 661 (1974) (Alevizos I). Where there is no actual damage to the property, the property owner must show a direct and substantial invasion of property rights which results in a definite and measurable diminution of the market value of the property. Id. at 487, 216 N.W.2d at 662. The invasion of property rights must be repeated and aggravated and of such magnitude so as to deprive the owner of the practical enjoyment of the property. Id. at 487-88, 216 N.W.2d at 662. We find that these standards appropriately govern inverse condemnation actions relating to property adjacent to public water access sites.
The property owner challenging the government's action has the burden of proving an unconstitutional taking or damage to the property. State by Powderly v. Erickson, 285 N.W.2d 84, 90 (Minn.1979). The question of whether a taking has occurred is a question of law. Fitger Brewing Co. v. State, 416 N.W.2d 200, 205 (Minn.Ct.App.1987), pet. for rev. denied (Minn. Feb. 23, 1988), cert. denied, --- U.S. ----, ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Vern Reynolds Const., Inc. v. City of Champlin, C7-95-1196
...305, 312, 232 N.W.2d 911, 916 (1975). Mandamus is the proper vehicle to assert a claim for inverse condemnation. Stenger v. State, 449 N.W.2d 483, 484 (Minn.App.1989), review denied (Minn. Feb. 28, 1990). A writ of mandamus is an extraordinary remedy and should only issue upon a showing tha......
-
State v. Carlson
...to compel the state to initiate condemnation proceedings by alleging a taking comprised of their loss of access, see Stenger v. State, 449 N.W.2d 483, 484 (Minn. App. 1989), review denied (Minn. Feb. 28, 1990), they did not. And they offer no evidence or even argue that they or anyone else ......
-
Cnty. of Isanti v. Kiefer
...challenging the government's action has the burden of proving an unconstitutional taking or damage to the property." Stenger v. State, 449 N.W.2d 483, 485 (Minn. App. 1989), review denied (Minn. Feb. 28, 1990). "Whether a governmental entity's action constitutes a taking is a question of la......
-
Cnty. of Isanti v. Kiefer
...challenging the government's action has the burden of proving an unconstitutional taking or damage to the property." Stenger v. State, 449 N.W.2d 483, 485 (Minn. App. 1989), review denied (Minn. Feb. 28, 1990). "Whether a governmental entity's action constitutes a taking is a question of la......