936 N.W.2d 55
N.D.2019Background
- Wieland owned a house on Copperfield Court adjacent to Drain No. 27, an area that flooded repeatedly.
- After studies following the 2009 Fargo flood, the City developed a permanent flood-protection plan (an earthen levee) that required acquiring Wieland’s parcel.
- The City negotiated for years, offered the appraised value ($725,000) plus statutory costs; Wieland refused.
- The City adopted a December 2016 resolution of necessity and commenced eminent domain in April 2017; Wieland previously lost a separate challenge to the resolution.
- The district court granted partial summary judgment that the taking was for a public use and necessary; a jury awarded $850,000 as just compensation and the court awarded about $89,044 in fees/costs.
- Wieland appealed, raising issues about public use, necessity, the adequacy of the resolution, statutory notice (pamphlet), and post-judgment interest; the Supreme Court affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the flood-protection project is a "public use" | Legislature authorizes municipal flood-control projects; resolution describes flood protection | Resolution too vague; condemnor must describe specific project | Public use — statute and resolution suffice; project is a public use |
| Whether taking Wieland's property was necessary | Engineers’ studies show levee and setback require acquiring Wieland’s lot; location is reasonably suitable | City abused discretion; alternatives exist | Necessary — court reviews only suitability; no bad faith/gross abuse, taking reasonable |
| Whether resolution sufficiently describes the project | Resolution identifies a "flood protection project" and City had engineer plans | Resolution is vague and allows condemning before project planning (cites Marina Towers) | Sufficient — description analogous to valid brief descriptions; engineers’ plans existed |
| Whether failure to provide AG pamphlet (statutory) voids condemnation | Pamphlet statute does not create a remedy; Wieland suffered no prejudice and had counsel | Failure is a statutory condition precedent that vitiates the action | No reversal — no statutory remedy shown and no prejudice to Wieland |
| Whether failure to pay post-judgment interest requires dismissal | City timely deposited required funds; issue of interest not presented below | Not depositing post-judgment interest means judgment debtor failed condition and action must be dismissed | Dismissal not required; court declines to expand relief on unbriefed interest issue |
Key Cases Cited
- Behm v. Montana-Dakota Utilities Co., 927 N.W.2d 865 (N.D. 2019) (describes judicial role in reviewing public necessity and public-use questions)
- Brandt v. City of Fargo, 905 N.W.2d 764 (N.D. 2018) (procedural history: prior challenge to Fargo resolution of necessity)
- Brock v. Price, 934 N.W.2d 5 (N.D. 2019) (summary judgment standard overview)
- City of Medora v. Golberg, 569 N.W.2d 257 (N.D. 1997) (presumption of public use when Legislature declares it)
- Oakes Municipal Airport Auth. v. Wiese, 265 N.W.2d 697 (N.D. 1978) (limits on judicial review of condemnor’s determination of necessity)
- City of Stockton v. Marina Towers LLC, 88 Cal.Rptr.3d 909 (Cal. Ct. App. 2009) (invalidated overly vague resolution of necessity; used by Wieland)
- Becker Elec., Inc. v. City of Bismarck, 469 N.W.2d 159 (N.D. 1991) (purpose of competitive-bidding statutes and why bidding is not a prerequisite to condemnation)
- Bayles v. North Dakota Dep’t of Transp., 872 N.W.2d 626 (N.D. 2015) (no reversible error for statutory violation absent prejudice)