This opinion will be unpublished and may not be cited except as provided by Minn . Stat. § 480A.08, subd. 3 (201 4 ). STATE OF MINNESOTA IN COURT OF APPEALS A14
- 2101
County of Washington, Respondent,

vs. Walker Properties of Woodbury II, LLC, et al., defendants and counter plaintiffs,

Appellants, Kevin Shoeberg, Defendant.

Filed August 31, 2015 Affirmed Bjorkman , Judge
Washington County District Court File No. 82

- CV

- 13

- 1866
Pete Orpu t, Washington County Attorney, Richard D. Hodsdon , Assistant County Attorney, Stillwater, Minnesota (for respondent) Jon Erik Kingstad, Oakdale, Minnesota (for appellants) Considered and decided by Stauber , Presiding Judge; Schellhas , Judge; and Bjorkman , Judge

.2 U N P U B L I S H E D O P I N I O N BJORKMAN , Judge Appellant s challenge the judgment quieting title to various tax

- forfeit ed properties in favor of the state . Because appellants did not deposit with the court administrator the amount of money owing in taxes as required by Minn. Stat. § 284.10 (2014), we affirm. FACTS In October 2005, a ppellant s Walker Properties of Woodbury II, LLC and Jeffrey Walker ( collectively Walker) entered into a n agreement with the City of Woodbury to develop a subdivision on property owned by Walker . The developer’s agreement (agreement) provided that improvements constructed by the city for the benefit of the development would be financed through special assessments on the property. The agreement also required Walker to waive any challenge to the validit y of these assessments. In September 2006, the city served Walker with a notice of assessment for the final cost of its improvements. W alker challenged the assessment in a lawsuit, which was dismissed based on the waiver provision

. In August 2007, Walk er commenced a second lawsuit alleging that the agreement is an illegal contract, or alternatively, that the city breached the agreement. In connection with that lawsuit, the district court ordered Walker to post a bond. Walker did not do so
and the dist rict court dismissed its complaint ag ainst the city with prejudice . Walker appealed and this court affirmed. Walker Prop s. of Woodbury II, LLC v. City of Woodbury , No. A12

- 2323, 2013 WL 4504431 (Minn. App. Aug. 26, 2013), review denied ( Minn. Nov. 12, 20 13)

.3

At the same time that Walker was disputing the special assessments, it failed to
pay the real estate taxes on 14 parcels within the subdivision. Respondent Washington County commenced proceedings to obtain a tax judgment against these parcels based on Walker’s failure to pay the 2006 taxes . In April 2007, a default tax judgment was entered
as to 12 of the 14 parcels

. Walker redeemed two of the parcels, Lots 5 and 6 of Block 1 , but s ubsequently failed to pay the 2007 real estate taxes. In April 200 8, the county obtained a default tax judgment against the remaining two parcels . After separate tax judgment sales , the 14 parcels were bid in by the state , but never sold or assigned to an actual purchaser. In April 2011, the county mailed Walker notice s of expiration of the three

- year redemption period for Lots 5 and 6. These notices informed Walker that it had 60 days to redeem . Walker failed to redeem the parcels, and on July 22, 2011 , the county recorded a certificate of forfeiture for the lots. In April 2012, Walker received notices of expiration for the remaining 12 parcels , which were subject to a five

- year redemption period. These notices similarly informed Walker that the redemp tion period would expire in 60 days. Walker again failed to redeem. The county recorded a certificate of forfeiture for the remaining 12 parcels on July 24, 2012. In November 2012, the county resolved to sell all 14 parcels at a public auction. Notice of the public sale was published as required by statute. Prior to the sale , Walker filed and recorded a n otice of l is p endens on the parcels

. Because of the notices, no bids were submitted at the public auction.4

The county commenced this quiet

- title a ction on behalf of the state 1 so the p arcels could be sold with clear titles. Walker responded with counterclaims and affirmative defenses asserting that the tax judgments are unconstitutional, the forfeiture proceedings were defective, and that many of t he applicable tax

- judgment statutes are

u nconstitutional. Following a bench trial based on stipulated facts, t he district court determined that the state has unencumbered title to the property. The district court concluded that Walker’s counter claims and defenses pertaining to Lots 5 and 6 are time

barred because they had been raised over a year after the certificate of forfeiture was recorded. And t he court determined that the counter claims and defenses related to the remaining 12 parcels were timely, b ut barred because Walker did not deposit with the court administrator the sum of money required by Minn. Stat. § 284.10

. Walker filed a motion for a new trial, which the district court denied. Walker appeal s . D E C I S I O N On appeal from a judgment, our review is limited to deciding whether the district court’ s findings are clearly erroneous and whether it erred in its legal conclusions. Foster v. Bergstrom , 515 N.W.2d 581, 585 (Minn. App. 1994)

. We review the denial of a motion for a new trial for an abuse of discretion. Moorhead Econ. Dev. Auth. v. Anda , 789 N.W.2d 860, 892 (Minn. 2010)

. Under Minn. Stat. § 284.10, a taxpayer who brings a cause of action or def ense against the state in a tax

- forfeiture proceeding must deposit with the court admini strator

1 Minn. Stat. § 284.12 (2014) requires that a quiet

- title action regarding tax

- forfeited land held by the state in trust for its taxing districts be brought by the county in which the land is located.5

“a sum equal to the amount of the taxes and special assessments, with interest, penalties, and costs thereon, accrued against the land at the time of forfeiture.” Only claims alleging that land was tax exempt or that the taxes have been paid are e xempt from this provision. Minn. Stat. § 284.10. The failure to pay the required deposit results in automatic dismissal of the adverse claims or defenses. Jefferson v. Sauers , 224 Minn. 134, 13 6

- 3 7 , 28 N.W.2d 153, 154

- 55 (1947)

. Walker concedes that it did not make the required deposit and that the statutory exceptions do not apply

. But Walker asserts that the statute impermissibly infringes on its First Amendment right of access to the courts by forcing it to pay a deposit to challenge the tax forfeiture. We disagree. In Hamborg v. C ounty of Hennepin , t his court upheld the constitutionality of Minn. Stat. § 284.10 in the face of the taxpayer ’s argument that the deposit requirement violated his due

- process and equal

- protection rights by forcing him to “pay to g et to court.” 498 N.W.2d 486, 489 (Minn. App. 1993) , review denied (Minn. June 22, 1993)

. In rejecting th at argument, we noted that the law affords taxpayer s numerous opportunit ies to challenge their real estate taxes prior to forfeiture without paying any amount into court. Id

. Walker’s attempts to distinguish Hamborg are unavailing. First, we are not persuaded that Walker ’s First Amendment argument is substantively distinguishable from
the du e - process and equal

- protection challenges in Hamborg

. All three constitutional arguments turn on the assertion that the statute denie s taxpayers the ability to freely challenge their real estate tax liability in court. For the reasons we articulated in Hamborg , we conclude that Walker had ample opportunity to challenge its tax liability6

without having to deposit the back taxes and that re quiring a deposit in this quiet

- title proceeding does not violate its constitutional rights. Second, Walker ’s assertion that Hamborg is not controlling because it did not involve a contractual w aiver of the right to challenge a city’s special ass essment is misplaced. Walker voluntarily waived its right to appeal the special assessment s in the developer’s agreement. But the agreement did not prevent Walker from challenging its real estate taxes , which , as in Hamborg , w e re the basis for the tax

- forfeiture proceedings

. Walker could have appealed its real estate tax assessment before the taxes were due , s ee Minn. Stat. § 278.01 (2014), or fi l ed an answer in the tax

- judgment proceedings contesting the claimed delinquency, s ee Minn. Stat. § 279.15 (2014) , without having to make a deposit into court

. Walker consistently failed to do so. And to the extent Walker seeks to once again challenge the validity of its contractual waiver, we note that Walker’s bargained

- for agreement was with the city, which is not a party in this case , that Minnesota law permit s such a waiver , s ee Minn. Stat. § 462.353, subd

. 4( d ) (2014) , a nd that we previo usly rejected Walker’s arguments. On this record , we conclude that Walker’s undisputed failure to pay the required deposit bar s its counterclaims and defenses and the district court properly declined to address their merits. 2
Affirmed.

2 Walker also asserts that the district court erred in determin ing its counterclaims and defenses related to Lots 5 and 6 were untimely. Because Walker’s failure to pay the deposit required by Minn. Stat. § 284.10 also bar s those claims and defenses , it is unnecessary to address Walker’s timeliness arguments.