County of Washington v. TMT Land V, LLC
2010 Minn. App. LEXIS 162
| Minn. Ct. App. | 2010Background
- Washington County used quick-take condemnation under Minn.Stat. § 117.042 (2008) to acquire part of TMT Land V LLC's property.
- On June 18, 2009, a jury awarded TMT total just compensation of $380,658 on a Special Verdict Form.
- Judgment was entered October 30, 2009; district court later learned of 2009 § 549.09 amendments increasing post-2009 interest to 10%.
- County sought a nunc pro tunc order to amend the judgment date to June 28, 2009 to avoid higher interest.
- District court granted the nunc pro tunc amendment; TMT appealed, arguing abuse of discretion and improper interest treatment.
- This court reverse and remand, holding nunc pro tunc cannot amend the date to avoid the statutory interest rate.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the district court abused discretion in granting nunc pro tunc entry | TMT argues the nunc pro tunc order was improper and should not amend the judgment date. | County contends the court properly corrected the record to reflect an earlier date under Rule 58.01 and equity. | Abuse of discretion; nunc pro tunc invalid to avoid statute-based interest. |
| Whether interest should be at 10% under § 549.09 as of judgment entry | TMT entitlement to 10% interest from August 1, 2009 under amended § 549.09. | Interest at the lower pre-amendment rates applies unless the date of entry is after August 1, 2009. | Interest rate fixed at 10% for judgments finally entered after August 1, 2009; remand for calculation consistent with this. |
Key Cases Cited
- Hampshire Arms Hotel Co. v. Wells, 210 Minn. 286 (Minn. 1941) (nunc pro tunc to correct record; cannot validate premature appeal)
- Wilcox v. Schloner, 222 Minn. 45 (Minn. 1946) (nunc pro tunc to correct the record or supply a deficiency caused by court action)
- Duluth Ready-Mix Concrete, Inc. v. City of Duluth, 520 N.W.2d 775 (Minn. App. 1994) (nunc pro tunc cannot erase a party's appeal rights)
- City of Maplewood v. Kavanagh, 333 N.W.2d 857 (Minn. 1983) (rules for applying Rule 58.01 to eminent-domain proceedings; special verdicts require directing entry)
- Garvey v. Garvey, 390 N.W.2d 33 (Minn. App. 1986) (directory nature of 90-day disposition statute; delay alone not basis for new trial)
- Haasken v. Haasken, 396 N.W.2d 253 (Minn. App. 1986) (ten-month delay without prejudice does not require new trial)