774 F.3d 1185
8th Cir.2014Background
- DRB #24, LLC and 701 Newton Ave. N. (DRB) own a vacant Minneapolis building and repeatedly failed to pay the city's annual vacant building registration fee.
- Minneapolis notified DRB in 2011 and 2012 of its intent to assess unpaid fees ($6,550 and $6,746) and held administrative hearings after which the fees were levied.
- DRB did not appeal the administrative assessments within 30 days; instead it sued in state court contesting the fees under Minnesota law, common law, and constitutional grounds; the city removed the case to federal court.
- The district court granted summary judgment to the city because the notices satisfied the ordinance’s requirements and DRB failed to timely appeal under Minn. Stat. § 429.081.
- On appeal, the Eighth Circuit reviewed de novo whether the city’s notice complied with Minneapolis Code § 227.100(d) (governing assessment notices) and whether § 429.081’s 30-day appeal bar applied to DRB’s statutory and common-law claims.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Minneapolis notice provisions governing special assessments were the state statute or city ordinance | DRB: state statute (Minn. Stat. ch. 429) preempts and controls notice | City: Minneapolis charter/ordinance procedures (M.C.O. § 227.100) govern assessments | Held: City ordinance controls; legislature allowed Minneapolis to elect chapter 429 or its charter procedures |
| Whether notices disclosed the "basis for the costs" | DRB: Notices lacked detailed calculation/explanation so basis not disclosed | City: Stating "Vacant Building Registration Fee" and total amount satisfies "basis for the costs" requirement | Held: Notices adequate; phrase reasonably described the basis and allowed DRB to challenge amount at hearing |
| Whether notices informed owners of deferment procedures | DRB: Notice failed to disclose waiver/suspension circumstances tied to restoration agreements | City: Notices informed owners of statutory deferment for seniors/disabled; waiver/suspension differs from "defer" and is not required to be disclosed | Held: Notices complied; deferment disclosure requirement met and waiver/suspension is a distinct concept not required by § 227.100(d) |
| Whether DRB's common-law claims escape § 429.081's 30-day bar | DRB: Fraud, misrepresentation, unjust enrichment are independent common-law claims with ordinary statutes of limitations | City: § 429.081 makes the 30-day appeal the exclusive method to contest special assessments, covering those claims | Held: § 429.081 bars those challenges; common-law claims attacking the assessment must be brought within the 30-day appeal period |
Key Cases Cited
- Stein v. Chase Home Fin., LLC, 662 F.3d 976 (8th Cir. 2011) (standard of review for summary judgment)
- Klapmeier v. Town of Ctr. of Crow Wing Cnty., 346 N.W.2d 133 (Minn. 1984) (proper notice is jurisdictional for assessments)
- Meadowbrook Manor, Inc. v. City of St. Louis Park, 104 N.W.2d 540 (Minn. 1960) (notice must allow party to question validity/amount of assessment)
- Sievert v. City of Lakefield, 319 N.W.2d 43 (Minn. 1982) (§ 429.081 precludes other avenues to contest special assessments)
- Curiskis v. City of Minneapolis, 729 N.W.2d 655 (Minn. Ct. App. 2007) (clarifying interplay of Minneapolis charter provisions and chapter 429)