This opinion is nonprecedential except as provided by

Minn. R. Civ. App. P. 136.01, subd. 1(c).

STATE OF MINNESOTA

IN COURT OF APPEALS

A23-1012

Vernon G. Muggli,

Appellant,

vs.

Leiding Township,

Respondent,

Kenneth Brokaw, et al.,

Defendants.

Filed February 26, 2024

Affirmed

Ross, Judge

St. Louis County District Court

File No. 69VI-CV-22-487

Blake D. Lubinus, Ed Shaw Law, Brainerd, Minnesota (for appellant)

Jason J. Kuboushek, Andrew A. Wolf, Iverson Reuvers, Bloomington, Minnesota (for 

respondent)

Considered and decided by Schmidt, Presiding Judge; Ross, Judge; and Gaïtas, 

Judge.

NONPRECEDENTIAL OPINION

ROSS, Judge

Kenneth Brokaw and Theodore Brokaw own a landlocked rural parcel that borders 

appellant Vernon Muggli’s parcel, which abuts a public road. Respondent Leiding

Township granted the Brokaws’ petition to establish a cartway across Muggli’s land based 
2

on Minnesota Statutes section 164.08 (2022), to give the Brokaws’ parcel access to the 

road. Muggli sued the township to challenge its cartway decision, and the district court 

granted summary judgment, affirming the cartway decision. Muggli argues on appeal that 

the township was not authorized by law to establish the cartway because the Brokaw lot 

already had public-road access by an easement and that the township’s decision to reject 

Muggli’s alternate route was arbitrary and capricious and contrary to the public’s interest. 

Because Muggli failed to make his existing-easement argument to the township and 

because the township’s decision to grant the proposed cartway route is supported by the 

record, we affirm.

FACTS

Kenneth Brokaw and Theodore Brokaw own a 9.72-acre undeveloped lot in Leiding 

Township. This lot sits just north of another 6.7-acre lot that Kenneth Brokaw owns. For 

the purpose of this opinion, we refer to these two Brokaw parcels together as a single lot. 

The Brokaw lot does not abut or have immediate access to a public roadway. It sits 

immediately south of Vernon Muggli’s lot, which abuts and accesses Slade Road.

The Brokaws petitioned Leiding Township under Minnesota Statutes section 

164.08, subdivision 2, to establish a cartway across Muggli’s property to allow their parcel 

to access Slade Road. The town board held a hearing on the petition, first inspecting the 

proposed cartway route and Muggli’s suggested alternative route and then returning to the 

town hall to discuss the petition. The Muggli family attended the inspection and hearing, 

along with a representative. Muggli opposed the cartway petition. His representative 

contended that the Brokaw family parcel is not landlocked because they can put a road on 
3

state DNR land. The representative also argued that the board could not say there was a 

wetlands issue without an environmental survey, and that the cartway would damage the 

Muggli property by dividing it and making it more difficult to build on.

The town board members voted unanimously to grant the proposed cartway and to 

award the Mugglis $792 in damages. The board memorialized its cartway decision by 

resolution:

That the Town Board finds that there is not a route from a 

public road to Petitioners’ property that is less damaging or less 

disruptive to the property ownership of others than the route 

proposed by Petitioners . . . . In fact, the proposed cartway route 

follows the route Petitioners have used for many years to 

access their property, so there is a cleared driving surface on 

the cartway route. The alternate route proposed by the affected 

landowner crosses low lying terrain that appears to be wetlands 

and would not be a feasible access or consistent with the 

public’s best interest.

Muggli filed a civil complaint in district court to challenge the township’s decision. 

The township successfully moved the district court to grant summary judgment affirming 

the cartway decision. Muggli appeals.

DECISION

Muggli challenges the district court’s summary-judgment decision. We review de 

novo the district court’s grant of summary judgment, determining whether any genuine 

issues of material fact prevent judgment as a matter of law. Montemayor v. Sebright Prods., 

Inc., 898 N.W.2d 623, 628 (Minn. 2017); see Minn. R. Civ. P. 56.01. A town board’s 

decision to grant or deny a cartway petition is a legislative action that will withstand 

judicial review unless the record evidence clearly contradicts the decision, the board 
4

applied an erroneous theory of law, or the board’s decision was arbitrary and capricious

and contrary to the public’s best interest. Horton v. Township of Helen, 624 N.W.2d 591, 

595 (Minn. App. 2001), rev. denied (Minn. June 19, 2001). Our de novo review leads us to 

affirm the district court’s summary-judgment order affirming the township’s cartway 

decision.

Muggli raises two issues in his challenge on appeal. He argues first that the township 

improperly granted the cartway petition because the Brokaws had access to a public road 

through an easement. He argues second that the district court erred by granting summary

judgment because the township acted arbitrarily, capriciously, and contrary to the public’s 

best interest in granting the cartway petition. Neither argument is persuasive.

Muggli unconvincingly contends that the township should have denied the cartway 

petition because the Brokaw parcel already had access to a public road through an 

easement. The controlling statute requires a town board to issue a resolution “establish[ing] 

a cartway at least two rods wide connecting the petitioner’s land with a public road” if the 

petitioning owner “has no access thereto except over a navigable waterway or over the 

lands of others.” Minn. Stat. § 164.08, subd. 2(a). Muggli asserts that, because an easement 

elsewhere gave the Brokaw parcel access to the public road, the statute did not authorize 

the township to establish a cartway across his land. See Roemer v. Bd. of Supervisors of 

Elysian Twp., 167 N.W.2d 497, 499–500 (Minn. 1969) (recognizing that a town board 

cannot grant a cartway to a petitioner who has a legally enforceable easement or right-ofpassage to a public road). But we do not reach the merits of Muggli’s easement argument. 

“When the municipal proceedings were fair and the record clear and complete, review is 
5

on the record.” Mendota Golf, LLP v. City of Mendota Heights, 708 N.W.2d 162, 180 

(Minn. 2006). Although Muggli raised the argument in the district court, he failed to raise 

it before the town board. He offered no evidence of a potential easement elsewhere and 

never even asserted that one existed. The district court correctly concluded that Muggli’s 

argument was not properly before it.

Muggli’s alternative argument is also unconvincing. He maintains that the township

acted arbitrarily and capriciously and not in the best interest of the public by failing to give 

“due consideration to the alternative routes suggested.” According to the statute, “[t]he 

town board may select an alternative route other than that petitioned for if the alternative 

is deemed by the town board to be less disruptive and damaging to the affected landowners 

and in the public’s best interest.” Minn. Stat. § 164.08, subd. 2(a). We first observe that, 

even if the board deemed an alternative route to be less disruptive and less damaging to the 

affected landowner and in the public’s interest, the statute affords the board the discretion 

whether to choose that route over the petitioner’s suggested route. Id. (“The town board 

may select an alternative route . . . .” (emphasis added)); see also Kennedy v. Pepin Twp., 

784 N.W.2d 378, 384 (Minn. 2010) (holding that a township must establish the requested 

route unless the township finds that an alternative route is less disruptive and damaging to 

neighbors and the alternative route is in the public’s best interest). The record informs us 

that the town board inspected the parcels and considered the petitioned-for cartway route 

and Muggli’s suggested alternative route. The board reasonably concluded that the 

petitioned-for route was less disruptive and damaging because a well-worn road already 

existed on the petitioned-for route, power lines requiring utility-company maintenance
6

already ran along the existing road, and Muggli’s alternative route, by contrast, required 

crossing a railroad track and “appears to be wetlands.” The board also found that the 

Brokaws had already been using the petitioned-for route for many years before Muggli 

roped off the road to bar their access.

The town board’s decision is well supported by the record. We hold that it acted 

within its discretion by choosing the petitioned-for route and denying Muggli’s proposed 

alternative route. The district court correctly determined that the township’s decision was 

not arbitrary, capricious, or against the public’s best interest.

Affirmed.