Title: Andrusick v. City of Apple Valley

State: minnesota

Issuer: Minnesota Supreme Court

Document:

258 N.W.2d 766 (1977) Don ANDRUSICK and Bonnie Andrusick, His Wife, et al., Appellants, v. CITY OF APPLE VALLEY, Respondent. No. 47319. Supreme Court of Minnesota. September 16, 1977. Smith, Juster & Feikema and Wyman Smith, Minneapolis, for appellants. McMenomy, Hertogs & Fluegel and Edward B. McMenomy, Rosemount, for respondent. Considered and decided by the court without oral argument. PER CURIAM. The respondent city, acting pursuant to Minn.St. c. 429, initiated a local street improvement and levied an assessment against appellants' property. The property owners appealed from this assessment to the Dakota County District Court. The appeal was taken basically upon the grounds that the improvement did not benefit the property. The notice of appeal required by Minn.St. 429.081 was served on the city clerk on Monday, October 13, 1975, which was designated by § 645.44, subd. 5, as a holiday (Columbus Day). That statute provided also "* * * nor shall any civil process be served thereon." The city clerk by affidavit disclosed that he was working in the city hall on Columbus Day 1975. The office was not open. He was called to the front door of the office and there handed a copy of the notice of appeal. When this matter was initially heard, the district court denied a motion by the city to dismiss the appeal on the ground that the notice having been served on a holiday was improperly served and the court therefore lacked jurisdiction. Upon the calling of the case for trial, the city renewed the motion for dismissal. The trial court tried the case on the merits, having reserved a ruling on the motion. At *767 the conclusion of the trial, the court dismissed the appeal on the ground that the court lacked jurisdiction because the notice of appeal had been served on a holiday. On this appeal the property owners contend that the notice of appeal pursuant to § 429.081 is not "civil process" within the meaning of § 645.44, subd. 5, and that the policy prohibiting service of process on holidays was not violated in this case. The trial court based its decision on Lebens v. Harbeck, Minn., 243 N.W.2d 128 (1976). In that case we affirmed a trial court ruling dismissing an appeal in an election contest because the notice of appeal had been served on a holiday. Appellants argue that the statute providing the method of service in election contests, Minn.St. 209.02, subd. 4, requires the notice of appeal to be served in the same manner as provided for in the service of a summons in a civil action while there is no such specification under § 429.081, which provides in part: The property owners also rely on In re Estate of Dahmen, 200 Minn. 55, 273 N.W. 364 (1937), which held that the statutory notice of appeal from probate to district court is not "process" within the meaning of the statute prohibiting service of process on a holiday. An analysis of the nature of an assessment proceeding is essential to a solution of the problem. United States District Judge Neville carefully reviewed the nature of an assessment proceeding under our statute in City of Owatonna v. Chicago, Rock Island and Pacific R. R. Company, D.C., 298 F. Supp. 919 (1969). In that case the city of Owatonna had assessed a portion of the costs of certain improvements against the property interest of the railroad. The railroad appealed to the Steele County District Court by filing a notice of appeal as required by § 429.081. Thereafter the railroad removed the case from the state court to the Federal District Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C.A. §§ 1441, 1446. The city of Owatonna moved to have the case remanded to the state court on the ground an assessment proceeding was not a civil action subject to removal to Federal court. Judge Neville's observations are helpful. He wrote as follows: Certainly when the notice of appeal in an assessment proceeding is properly served and filed, the judicial system is invoked for subsequent proceedings. This is not true in an appeal from the probate court to the district court. As noted in the Dahmen case: The distinction is clear. In an appeal in a probate proceeding the jurisdiction is continuing while in an assessment proceeding the function of the court is precipitated by the serving of the notice of appeal. Black, Law Dictionary (4 ed.) p. 1370, defines "process" as: The appeal in an assessment proceeding initiates a civil action. Accordingly, the notice of appeal is "civil process" and may not be served on a legal holiday. Affirmed. OTIS, J., took no part in the consideration or decision of this case.