800 N.W.2d 637
Minn.2011Background
- Marlow Timberland purchased ~40,000 acres in Lake County from Potlatch in early 2008.
- Marlow filed a 2008 tax petition challenging taxes on 744 parcels across four townships and two unorganized territories.
- Lake County moved to dismiss the 2008 petition for including noncontiguous parcels from multiple jurisdictions.
- Marlow separately filed 2009 and 2010 petitions; these were dismissed for nonpayment of taxes under Minn. Stat. § 278.03, subd. 1.
- Marlow sought reinstatement under Minn. R. Civ. P. 60.02 or argued for equitable reinstatement; the Tax Court denied reinstatement for 2009/2010 and dismissed 2008.
- On review, the Minnesota Supreme Court reversed as to 2008 amendment, and affirmed the dismissal/reinstatement issues for 2009/2010.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether amendment of the 2008 petition should be permitted | Marlow argues Rule 15.01 allows amendment to proceed in the interest of justice. | Lake County contends amendment would prejudice and the petition as filed had no authority supporting it. | Amendment allowed; no prejudice shown; justice requires. |
| Whether 2009/2010 petitions should be reinstated under Rule 60.02 | Rule 60.02 relief should apply due to financial hardship and mispayment caused by hardship. | Rule 60.02 relief not available; § 278.03 automatic reinstatement scheme controls. | Rule 60.02 relief unavailable; statutory remedy controls. |
| Whether equitable reinstatement is warranted for 2009/2010 petitions | Equity supports reinstatement where remedies exist and hardship is shown. | Equity does not trump an adequate statutory remedy under § 278.03, subd. 1. | Equitable relief denied; statutory remedy adequate. |
| Relation of § 278.03, subd. 1 to petition practice and reinstatement | § 278.03 allows continued prosecution with payment waivers under certain conditions. | Automatic reinstatement provision governs; rule changes remove need for 60.02 relief. | Statutory framework governs; reinstatement under § 278.03 controls. |
Key Cases Cited
- Husby-Thompson Co. v. County of Freeborn, 435 N.W.2d 814 (Minn. 1989) (Kosloski four-part test for Rule 60.02 relief in tax petitions)
- Thunderbird Motel Corp. v. County of Hennepin, 289 Minn. 239 (Minn. 1971) (Rule 60.02 relief and excusable neglect considerations)
- Rosso v. Village of Brooklyn Center, 214 Minn. 364 (Minn. 1943) (adequate remedy at law bars equity when available)
- Kosloski v. Jones, 295 Minn. 177 (Minn. 1973) (four-part Kosloski test for granting Rule 60.02 relief)
- Fabio v. Bellomo, 504 N.W.2d 758 (Minn. 1993) (leave to amend should be freely given unless prejudice)
- Voicestream Minneapolis, Inc. v. RPC Props., Inc., 743 N.W.2d 267 (Minn. 2008) (liberal amendment policy under Rule 15.01)