Court Opinion

ID: 9719409
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 07:51:43.837351+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:24:06.997467
License: Public Domain

GILBERT, Justice
(dissenting).
I concur with the majority’s discussion of the mortgage exception to the merger doctrine, but believe that the analysis stops short of considering all of the facts and law presented in this case. Therefore, I dissent as to the result and would remand this case to the trial court.
Our case law has firmly established that application of the merger doctrine depends on the equities of the case. For over one hundred years we have recognized that “[t]he doctrine of merger is a flexible, equitable doctrine” the application of which depends on the facts or circumstances of the particular case at issue, including the intent of the parties.1 Continental Mut. Life Ins. Co. v. King, 72 Minn. 287, 291, 75 N.W. 376, 378 (1898); see also State ex rel. Inter-State Iron Co. v. Wallace, 196 Minn. 212, 214-15, 264 N.W. 775, 776 (1936).
Contrary to this modern view of merger, no consideration is given to the intent of the parties and the impact of the majority’s decision on all of the entities involved with the properties. The majority fails to consider or acknowledge the restrictions imposed on the properties by the City of Minneapolis. By law, the lot division of the original Willow Street property into separate apartment and office parcels could not have occurred without the prior approval of the Minneapolis City Planning Commission. See Minn.Stat. § 462.351-365 (1998); Minneapolis, Minn., City Char*152ter ch. 13, § 5 (1999); Minneapolis, Minn., Ordinances ch. 598 (1995). The Commission’s resolution to that effect and various documents relating to the restrictions were in the record before the trial court and court of appeals. As required by law, the Commission’s resolution approving the lot division was recorded with the Hennepin County Recorder on August 2, 1988. Thus, anyone examining the title, including the appellant, would be put on notice of the conditions placed by the city on both parcels. Although the document creating the parking easement was, obviously, not prepared in tangible form until after the city approved the lot subdivision, the record shows that the subdivision, as proposed to and accepted by the Commission, required the parking easement at issue in this case. The record also reflects “coordination” efforts between the two owners to properly document this transaction. The full Minneapolis City Council concurred in the Commission’s approval of the subdivision “subject to the condition that none of the parcels may be broken down into their component parts without the prior approval of the City Planning Commission.” The easement was referenced in deeds and title insurance policies2 so all parties had actual notice of its existence.
Prior to this subdivision, the parking rights at issue in the present case were shared by the entire Willow Street property. An easement requiring the continued sharing of parking between the office and apartment parcels was an express condition of the subdivision. The easement was to continue so long as the apartment building continued in existence and was to run with the land and bind not only present owners but also future owners.
While the record does not show that the tenants of the apartment parcel ever used the parking rights, the existence of those parking rights was nevertheless preserved for future “need or inten[t]” and was a valuable commodity to whomever held the parcel. The record contains evidence that on-site parking was a desired and valuable commodity to both the apartment and office tenants. In the Loring Park area, parking space is at a premium. The elimination of parking rights may significantly affect the already intense competition for scarce parking space.
Despite the extensive role the city played in creating the restricted property interests at stake here and the potentially adverse effect elimination of the parking easement could have on the Loring Park neighborhood, appellant admitted that the city has not even been notified of this action. The majority now continues this inequity by summarily eliminating the easement, contrary to the city’s prohibition.
The majority suggests that we are prohibited from considering the city’s interests on appeal because neither party addressed those interests at the trial court level. However, the lot division conditions were in the record and the lower courts decided the case in respondent’s favor on other grounds and did not address the city’s prohibition on breaking up the component parts. On review of a grant of summary judgment, we must review the entire record of a case to determine whether an issue of material fact exists. See Boutin v. Lafleur, 591 N.W.2d 711, 714 (Minn.1999); O’Malley v. Ulland Bros., 549 N.W.2d 889, 892 (Minn.1996). Where, as here, important factual and legal consid*153erations of record have not been reached by the lower courts, I would remand the case for consideration of that factual issue, rather than have this court become a fact finder.

. Appellant argues that our longstanding rule that equity affects the applicability of the merger doctrine does not apply to the merger of an appurtenant easement into a greater estate. As support, appellant cites a Colorado case and an Oregon case, both of which suggest that merger is different when easements are involved. See Salazar v. Terry, 911 P.2d 1086, 1091 (Colo.1996); Witt v. Reavis, 284 Or. 503, 587 P.2d 1005, 1008 (1978). However, neither these cases nor appellant provide any reason why, when a case contains obvious equitable factors that weigh against merger, we should not take those factors into consideration simply because the case involves an easement rather than some other property interest.

. The title insurance policy used by the appellant in purchasing this property and submitted to the trial court noted the easement in issue as an exception to clear title. Title examiners do not have the power to extinguish such rights, but rather are simply obligated to note them as being found in a title search. If a party wants to eliminate such valuable recorded rights, they must initiate an equitable action in the courts. Until the courts use their equitable powers to eliminate such interests, the title examiners can rely on the recorded documentation.