Hector v. City of Fargo
2014 ND 53
N.D.2014Background
- Hector appealed a district court judgment affirming Fargo City’s special assessments for Improvement District 5314 along I-29 and 52nd Ave S.
- Hector filed a separate 2009 action under N.D.C.C. § 40-26-07 asserting reassessment/voidness of assessments and also alleged fraud and denial of federal rights; the court stayed pending the prior appeal.
- This Court previously affirmed the assessment decision in 2012, holding the City’s costs and the assessment did not violate statutes or be arbitrary.
- Hector pursued post-appeal litigation asserting misallocation of costs, fraud, and federal-funds issues in a separate action; the district court dismissed as res judicata.
- The majority construes § 40-26-07 in light of statutes on appeals and essential separation-of-powers principles, concluding the current action is barred by res judicata and exhaustion of remedies.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does res judicata bar the § 40-26-07 action? | Hector argues costs could be challenged separately post-appeal and that res judicata does not apply. | Fargo argues issues were raised or could have been raised in the prior appeal and are barred. | Yes; barred by res judicata. |
| What is the proper scope of § 40-26-07 for challenges to special assessments? | Hector contends § 40-26-07 authorizes a de novo proceeding to set true costs. | Fargo contends § 40-26-07 reviews are limited and generally follow an appeal procedure; separate actions are limited by statute and case law. | Appeal procedure generally adequate; separate action barred; interpretation favors review via appeal. |
| Are federal-funds and due process claims viable under § 1983 in this context? | Hector claims improper use/diversion of federal funds and due process violations entitle relief under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. | Fargo argues no specific federal violation shown and that state-law framework governs; claims are barred by res judicata. | No; § 1983 claims not established; precluded by prior decision and lack of shown federal violation. |
| Do equal protection claims have merit? | Hector asserts discriminatory treatment in assessments. | Fargo argues rational-basis review applies and the classifications are rationally related to a legitimate purpose. | Precluded; rational-basis review applied; no equal protection violation found. |
Key Cases Cited
- Soo Line R.R. Co. v. City of Wilton, 172 N.W.2d 74 (ND 1969) (establishes deference where evidence supports the special assessment decision)
- Serenko v. City of Wilton, 593 N.W.2d 368 (ND 1999) (outlines statutory scheme and appellate review for special assessments)
- Shark Bros., Inc. v. Cass Cnty., 256 N.W.2d 701 (ND 1977) (exhaustion of administrative remedies; bifurcated procedures discouraged)
- Ungar v. North Dakota State Univ., 721 N.W.2d 16 (ND 2006) (res judicata defined; final judgment conclusive)
- Foss Methodist Church v. City of Wahpeton, 157 N.W.2d 347 (ND 1968) (historical scope of § 40-26-01/07; de novo review origins)
- Shaw v. Burleigh Cnty., 286 N.W.2d 792 (ND 1979) (separation of powers; de novo review framework for local decisions)
- Amerada Hess Corp. v. Furlong Oil & Minerals Co., 348 N.W.2d 913 (ND 1984) (adequacy of legal remedies; bifurcated remedies discouraged)