Opinion ID: 612720
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Possible Exceptions to, or Tolling of, the Limitations Period

Text: As noted, the Minch Family argues that the continuing trespass rule preserves its claims despite the statute-of-limitations bar. If applicable, this rule would allow the Minch Family to seek recovery for damages sustained in the two-year period immediately preceding the filing of its complaint on October 14, 2008. See Hebert v. City of Fifty Lakes, 744 N.W.2d 226, 233 (Minn.2008) (explaining that a continuous trespass would allow the plaintiffs to recover damages for the interference with their property rights that occurred during the limitations period immediately preceding the filing of the action). The Minch Family, however, has not cited any authority to support applying this exception to the two-year statute of limitations under § 541.051. In contrast, as the district court noted, the Minnesota Court of Appeals, in a recent unpublished decision, held that the continuing trespass exception does not apply to § 541.051. Geary v. Miller, No. A08-1216, 2009 WL 1515505, at  (Minn.Ct.App. June 2, 2009) (unpublished), rev. denied (Minn.Aug. 11, 2009). As the Geary court explained: Section 541.051 expressly states that, when the other conditions for the time bars are met, no action [can be brought] by any person in contract, tort, or otherwise to recover damages.  Id., subd. 1(a) (emphasis added). This language does not reasonably allow an interpretation that continuing trespass is exempted from the bar. Likewise, the statute has specifically delineated exceptions to the time bars, none of which address continuing trespass. See id., subd. 1(b)-(e) (defining exceptions or limitations to time bar in subdivision 1(a)). It would not be reasonable to infer an exception for continuing trespass when the statute has listed exceptions that do not include it. Id. We find the Minnesota Court of Appeals's reasoning in Geary persuasive. Cf. Baribeau v. City of Minneapolis, 596 F.3d 465, 475 (8th Cir.2010) (Decisions from the Minnesota Court of Appeals are particularly relevant and we must follow such decisions when they are the best evidence of Minnesota law. (quotation and citation omitted)). Thus, we conclude that the possible existence of a continuing trespass cannot exempt a portion of the Minch Family's claim from the two-year statute of limitations under § 541.051. Alternatively, the Minch Family argues that the statute of limitations was tolled from the early 2000s until September 7, 2007, when it was seeking relief from the BRRWD. Under Minnesota law, [t]he plaintiff bears the burden of proving that the statute of limitations should be tolled. Mercer v. Andersen, 715 N.W.2d 114, 120 (Minn.Ct.App.2006). We conclude that the Minch Family has failed to meet this burden. The Minch Family cites cases showing that, when challenging the action (or inaction) of an administrative agency, a plaintiff must first exhaust its administrative remedies before pursuing relief in court. See, e.g., Zaluckyj v. Rice Creek Watershed Dist., 639 N.W.2d 70, 75 (Minn.Ct.App.2002) (suit to force watershed district to repair a ditch); see also Amcon Corp. v. City of Eagan, 348 N.W.2d 66, 71-72 (Minn.1984) (suit challenging a zoning decision). These cases demonstrate that the Minch Family would be required to pursue any available administrative remedies before suing the BRRWD to get the BRRWD to enforce its drainage rules and regulations. These cases, however, do not address whether a plaintiff has to seek administrative relief before suing a private individual. Although the Minch Family claims that the BRRWD did not release [its] jurisdiction over the Norbys' field dike until September 7, 2007, the Minch Family has cited no laws, rules, or regulations demonstrating that the BRRWD has exclusive jurisdiction over private water flow disputes between private landowners. Moreover, the record belies the Minch Family's assertion that the BRRWD somehow accepted and later released jurisdiction over the field dike. The record merely reflects that the Minch Family complained to the BRRWD, at public meetings, about the field dike; the BRRWD followed up on those complaints; and the BRRWD ultimately chose to take no action. The Minch Family has not demonstrated how it would have been barred from concurrently bringing a private suit against the Norbys. Accordingly, the Minch Family has failed to meet its burden of showing that the two-year statute of limitations should be tolled, and its claims are untimely.