Cossette v. Cass County Joint Water Resource District
2017 ND 120
N.D.2017Background
- Donald Cossette and the Angela R. Cossette Revocable Living Trust own ~80 acres potentially in the path of the Red River Diversion Project; the Cass County Joint Water Resource District (the District) is acquiring property rights for the Project.
- District representatives inspected the property, offered $476,040 to purchase it, and the Cossettes rejected the offer.
- In May 2016 the District passed a resolution of necessity stating the Cossettes’ land was necessary and that the District would proceed to acquire a permanent right-of-way easement by legal proceedings (eminent domain).
- Two days after the resolution, the Cossettes sued: (1) seeking declaratory relief that the resolution was improper, and (2) appealing the resolution of necessity to the district court, alleging false representations and lack of authority.
- The District moved to dismiss, arguing (a) declaratory relief is improper when a statutory appeal exists, and (b) the Cossettes were not "aggrieved" and therefore not entitled to appeal under N.D.C.C. § 61-16.1-54; the district court dismissed the complaint.
- The Supreme Court affirmed dismissal of the declaratory-judgment claim, reversed dismissal of the appeal from the resolution of necessity (holding the Cossettes were aggrieved), and remanded for the appeal to be adjudicated.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a court may entertain declaratory relief alongside a statutory appeal from a water resource board decision | Cossette argued declaratory relief was available to challenge the resolution | District argued statutory appeal process precludes parallel declaratory action | Held: Declaratory relief inappropriate here; statutory appeal is the proper remedy (affirmed dismissal of declaratory claim) |
| Whether the Cossettes were "aggrieved" under N.D.C.C. § 61-16.1-54 and thus entitled to appeal the resolution of necessity | Cossette argued the resolution (identifying their property and declaring eminent domain will proceed) immediately and directly affected their property rights, so they were aggrieved | District argued the resolution was only an interim step toward eminent domain and merely potential/contingent harm, so no appealable aggrievement yet | Held: Resolution of necessity sufficiently and immediately aggrieved the Cossettes; they may appeal the resolution (reversed dismissal on this point) |
| Whether an appeal must await a subsequent condemnation action | Cossette argued an immediate appeal is proper once the board declares intent to acquire property | District argued appeals should wait until a taking or later step to avoid piecemeal litigation | Held: Court held statute permits appeal from any board order or decision; resolution of necessity itself gave Cossettes standing to appeal; remanded for consideration on the merits |
| Procedural obligation of the District after appeal | Cossette noted District had not filed the administrative record after appeal | District failed to file record as required | Held: On remand the District must prepare and file the record per N.D.C.C. § 28-34-01(2) |
Key Cases Cited
- Brandvold v. Lewis & Clark Pub. Sch. Dist., 803 N.W.2d 827 (N.D. 2011) (Rule 12(b)(6) dismissal standard; complaint construed in plaintiff's favor)
- Vandall v. Trinity Hosps., 676 N.W.2d 88 (N.D. 2004) (procedural standards for evaluating pleading challenges)
- Anderson v. Richland Cty. Water Res. Bd., 506 N.W.2d 362 (N.D. 1993) (statutory appeals from local governing bodies preclude parallel declaratory-judgment actions)
- Treiber v. Citizens State Bank, 598 N.W.2d 96 (N.D. 1999) (definition of an "aggrieved" party for purposes of appeal; interest must be immediate, direct, and adverse)
- Vickery v. N.D. Workers Comp. Bureau, 545 N.W.2d 781 (N.D. 1996) (potential for future injury does not establish aggrievement)
- Dakota Resource Council v. Stark County Bd. of County Comm'rs, 817 N.W.2d 373 (N.D. 2012) (landowner was factually aggrieved by a final zoning decision altering nearby land use)