Court Opinion

ID: 9883710
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-10-06 02:14:17.619296+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:48:29.094546
License: Public Domain

FOLEY, Judge
(dissenting).
I respectfully dissent. I do not believe that the city was without jurisdiction to levy the assessment, nor do I believe that the assessment can be collaterally attacked in this manner. I would therefore reverse the trial court’s grant of summary judgment and remand for further proceedings on the malpractice action.
1. The majority’s interpretation of the doctrine of strict compliance is too simplistic and ignores the intent of the statute and the peculiar facts of this case. I do not believe that a mere informality or an immaterial defect should vitiate a notice where the error is not misleading and the notice gives the necessary information. Strict compliance is not equivalent to literal compliance and does not require a literal and blind adhesion to mere words. See SMB Investments v. Iowa-Illinois Gas & Electric Co., 329 N.W.2d 635, 637 (Iowa 1983) (“[wjhile statutory provisions regulating the exercise of eminent domain must be strictly complied with * * *, this does not necessarily mean literal compliance with the notice statute is required; substantial conformity is sufficient”) (citations omitted). Strict compliance merely requires that the conditions imposed by a statute “will not be extended by construction.” Wessen v. Village of Deephaven, 284 Minn. 296, 298, 170 N.W.2d 126, 128 (1969) (emphasis added); Village of Edina v. Joseph, 264 Minn. 84, 94, 119 N.W.2d 809, 816 (1962) (emphasis added). See Ewert v. City of Winthrop, 278 N.W.2d 545, 550 (Minn.1979) (assessment statute cannot be extended to include right to a jury trial when no such right is explicitly granted by the statute). In this case, the city does not seek to extend the statutory appeal period. It merely requests that this court look beyond the literal terms of the notice and recognize that it contains a technical and minor error which prejudiced no one.
In Habel v. City of Chisago City, 346 N.W.2d 668 (Minn.Ct.App.1984), a municipality’s failure to comply with the literal provisions of Minn.Stat. § 429.061, subd. 1 (1982) did not automatically render its notice of an assessment hearing defective. The property owners had asserted that the language in the notice was misleading because its provisions were not presented exactly in the same order as the statute. This court disagreed and in an opinion written by Chief Judge Popovich concluded that the notice was not deficient for that reason.
The property owners in Habel had also asserted that the notice was defective because it failed to inform them of deferments available to retired or disabled persons, as mandated by Minn.Stat. § 429.061, which provides in pertinent part:
The notice shall inform property owners of the provisions of sections 435.193 to 435.195 and the existence of any deferment procedure established pursuant thereto in the municipality.
Minn.Stat. § 429.061, subd. 1 (1982) (emphasis added). We again refused to find the notice defective because:
We believe the deferment portion of MinmStat. § 429.061, subd. 1 can be reasonably read as requiring information of the deferment statutes and of their procedures only if the municipality has established a deferment policy. To require notice of deferment and procedures when these optional deferments have not been established by the municipality would be absurd, in contravention of the well settled rule that the legislature does not intend an absurd result. Minn.Stat. § 645.17(1) (1982). Moreover, the appellants have not been prejudiced in any way by the failure of the notice to include the deferment options since they were not eligible for a deferment even if the City had established a deferment ordinance.
Habel, 346 N.W.2d at 671. In so doing, we looked beyond the literal language of the statute and the notice.
*847Similar to the property owners in Habel, the landowners in this case have not been prejudiced or misled by the language in the city’s notice providing for 20 days within which to appeal instead of 30 days. The majority conveniently downplays several important and undisputed facts. One is the language of the notice itself, which makes specific reference to the section of the statute providing the 30-day appeal period:
An owner may appeal an assessment to District Court pursuant to M.S.A. Section 4-29.081 by serving notice of the appeal upon the Mayor or City Clerk of the City of Maplewood within twenty (20) days after the adoption of the assessment and by filing such notice with the District Court within ten (10) days after service upon the Mayor or City Clerk.
(Emphasis added).
In addition, the city attorney announced at the beginning of the hearing that the notices contained an error and that the correct appeal period was 30 days, not 20 days. While neither the landowners nor Daubney were present when this announcement was made, one of the landowners admitted during a deposition that another citizen had informed him that he had 30 days to file an appeal. Daubney also acknowledged during a deposition that at the time of the hearing he knew that the appeal period was 30 days. The landowners and Daubney thus had actual knowledge that the appeal period was 30 days.
Based upon these facts, it cannot be said that the notice was misleading or in any way prejudicial. Because I believe that the notice was not defective and was in strict compliance with the statute, I conclude that the city had jurisdiction to levy the assessment. The position of the majority is based upon a hyper-technical objection lacking in substance.
2. Even if the city was without jurisdiction to levy the assessment, I also disagree with the majority’s conclusion that the city cannot assert laches as a defense. Although the supreme court in Klapmeier similarly determined that a reassessment had been levied without legal authority, it nevertheless went on to address the issues of laches and waiver. Klapmeier, 346 N.W.2d at 136-37. Klapmeier thus suggests that waiver and laches are available defenses when an assessment is challenged, even if the assessment was levied without jurisdiction.
The purpose of laches is “to prevent one who has not been diligent in asserting a known right from recovering at the expense of one who has been prejudiced by the delay.” Aronovitch v. Levy, 238 Minn. 237, 242, 56 N.W.2d 570, 574 (1953) (quoted by Klapmeier, 346 N.W.2d at 137). In this case, the landowners and Daubney admit that they knew an appeal had to be taken from the assessment within 30 days. The landowners claim that they assumed Daub-ney was representing them in an appeal. They nevertheless waited over four years to sue Daubney for malpractice and to collaterally challenge the validity of the assessment in an amended complaint.
The city claims that the prejudice it will suffer should the assessment be invalidated renders the landowners’ delay unreasonable. According to an affidavit filed by the city clerk, if the assessment is invalidated the city will suffer financially and lose approximately $916,000 on its levy of $2.4 million from all five projects assessed at the hearing in July 1981. The city also claims that if required to conduct a reassessment proceeding, it will suffer a considerable financial and administrative burden. Given this, I believe that the landowners’ delay in challenging the assessment prejudiced the city, was unreasonable, and makes the relief sought by the landowners inequitable.
Although not discussed by the trial court, the city also raised the defense of waiver in its original answer and its answer to the landowners’ amended complaint. In Klapmeier, the supreme court addressed a waiver argument and concluded:
[A] clear showing of waiver of notice requires an [overt] act which is inconsistent with subsequent assertion of the right to notice, coupled with knowledge of that right.
*848Klapmeier, 346 N.W.2d at 137. Here, one of the landowners attended the hearing and filed his objection to the assessment. He also knew, as did Daubney, that he had 30 days to appeal from the assessment. Indeed, about ten days after the hearing, one of the landowners telephoned Daubney to cheek on the status of his appeal. Daub-ney apparently did not believe that an appeal would be successful or warranted, and allowed the 30-day period to run. Under these facts, it is clear that the landowners knew of their right to appeal, but failed to exercise it. I therefore believe that they have waived any right to object to an error in the notice.
3. Finally, I do not agree that the assessment in this case can be collaterally attacked. I disagree with the majority’s conclusion that this collateral attack was proper because the city was without jurisdiction to levy the assessment. The procedural irregularities of this case essentially allowed this collateral attack to be maintained.
This action began as a malpractice claim by the landowners against Daubney. After some discovery, Daubney sought to amend his answer to include a collateral challenge to the validity of the assessment as a defense. In its order granting that amendment, the trial court suggested that the city be brought in as a third-party defendant. Daubney therefore impleaded the city and the landowners were persuaded to amend their complaint to include a claim against the city.
Joinder of the city under these circumstances, however, constituted an impermissible use of the third-party action under Minn.R.Civ.P. 14.01. A defendant may institute a third-party action against a person who is or may be liable to him for all or part of the plaintiffs claims. The rule does not permit a defendant to identify an additional party who may be liable to the plaintiff. See D. Herr & R. Haydock, 1 Minnesota Practice § 14.4, at 323 (1985); Altendorfer v. Jandric, Inc., 294 Minn. 475, 478, 199 N.W.2d 812, 814-15 (1972) (third-party complaint which merely offers to the plaintiffs a different tortfeasor who the defendant alleges is solely responsible for the plaintiffs’ injuries is an impermissible use of the third-party practice under Rule 14).
The question of whether there has been a misjoinder of parties cannot be raised for the first time on appeal. See Whipple v. Mahler, 215 Minn. 578, 580, 10 N.W.2d 771, 773 (1943) (misjoinder of causes must be raised by answer or demurrer and cannot be raised for the first time on appeal). The city, however, did assert in its answer to Daubney’s third-party complaint that the complaint should be dismissed because Daubney lacked standing to challenge the validity of the assessment. Clearly, Daub-ney has no standing. He is not an aggrieved party under Minn.Stat. § 429.081, and he is not an owner of property affected by the assessment. Accordingly, his third-party complaint against the city should have been dismissed.
After joining the city, Daubney filed a motion for summary judgment, seeking an adjudication that the assessment was invalid and a dismissal with prejudice of the landowners’ malpractice claims. Again, the city argued that Daubney lacked standing to challenge the assessment. The trial court ignored this objection, reasoning that it was “moot” because the landowners had joined in the motion and had standing. The record, however, does not contain any motion papers from the landowners or any other indication that they actually joined in Daubney’s summary judgment motion. Even assuming that the trial court could properly grant summary judgment to a party without the filing of a motion, it was clearly improper to grant summary judgment to Daubney, who had no standing to contest the adequacy of the notice. See Hughes v. Patrick & Associates, 300 Minn. 387, 391-92, 220 N.W.2d 347, 350 (1974).
Finally, I do not believe that it was proper for the trial court to dismiss with prejudice the landowners’ malpractice claim against Daubney based on its grant of summary judgment. Although the land*849owners only challenge this dismissal should the grant of summary judgment against the city be reversed,1 they fail to recognize that the malpractice claim and the challenge to the assessment itself are entirely separate claims with potentially different damages. Unless they expressly stipulate to dismissal of the malpractice claim, I would reinstate it and proceed on that theory.

. Notices of appeal in this case were filed by both the city and by the landowners. The city’s notice of appeal challenges the grant of summary judgment declaring its assessment notice invalid (Cl-86-1428); the landowners’ seeks reinstatement of their malpractice claim only if the city is successful in its appeal (CX-86-1430). Prior to oral arguments, these appeals were consolidated by this court on its own motion.