Court Opinion

ID: 9703740
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 00:06:18.986769+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:21:51.482746
License: Public Domain

POPOVICH, Chief Judge
(dissenting).
I respectfully dissent:
1. The joint resolution of May 3, 1976, in paragraph 4, provided:
Because of the unknown time element of orderly annexation, both parties agreed to leave the question of annexations within this area to the discretion of the Minnesota Municipal Commission upon application to them by either party hereto, and upon agreement of a majority of the landowners thereto.
(Emphasis added).
2. Minn.Stat. § 414.0325, subd. 1, permits initiation of orderly annexation proceedings and confers jurisdiction on the Minnesota Municipal Board by a joint resolution of a township and municipality. A condition in this joint resolution was agreement by majority of the landowners. Here such agreement was not present. The Board exceeded its jurisdiction because a condition initiating the proceedings and conferring jurisdiction was not met. It was a reasonable condition and not contrary to public policy. The action taken in violation of this reasonable provision denies protection to the parties and landowners to evaluate later circumstances when actual annexation is contemplated.
3.In Township of Fergus Falls v. City of Fergus Falls, 357 N.W.2d 428 (Minn.Ct.App.1984), we held a provision in a joint resolution for orderly annexation requiring an election must be honored. I would extend that principle to the condition in this joint resolution also.