In re Skyline Materials, Ltd.
2012 Minn. App. LEXIS 80
Minn. Ct. App.2012Background
- Skyline Materials sought a setback variance from the county zoning ordinance.
- Board of adjustment granted the variance and respondents received notice on April 4, 2011.
- Respondents appealed under Minn. Stat. § 394.27, subd. 9, filing in district court on April 8, 2011.
- Notice of appeal was served on the county zoning office and the county attorney.
- The county moved to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction arguing improper service within 30 days.
- District court denied the motion; affirmed on appeal that service complied with rules and statute.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Who must be served with a notice of appeal? | Fields | County | Service on county attorney suffices; appeal is ongoing action |
Key Cases Cited
- Curtis v. Otter Tail Cnty. Bd. of Adjustment, 455 N.W.2d 86 (Minn.App.1990) (summons not required for county-board of adjustment appeal)
- Landgren v. Pipestone Cnty. Bd. of Comm’rs, 633 N.W.2d 875 (Minn.App.2001) (service by sheriff under statutory scheme; distinction from notice-of-appeal)
- Oronoco Sch. Dist. v. Town of Oronoco, 212 N.W. 8 (Minn.1927) (district court may adapt procedures to exercise statutory jurisdiction)
- Krueger v. Zeman Constr. Co., 781 N.W.2d 858 (Minn.2010) (review of district court dismissal motions; allegations viewed in plaintiff's favor)
- Marzitelli v. City of Little Canada, 582 N.W.2d 904 (Minn.1998) (failure to perfect appeal within statutory period deprives jurisdiction)
- Roehrdanz v. Brill, 682 N.W.2d 626 (Minn.2004) (service of process questions are legal questions reviewed de novo)