652 F.3d 851
8th Cir.2011Background
- Minch Family LLLP sues the Norbys for flooding on adjoining farmland caused by a field dike on the Norbys' property.
- BRRWD had involvement; Norbys repaired the dike after a 2001 washout and allegedly increased its height.
- Plaintiffs alleged nuisance, reasonable-use-doctrine, trespass, strict liability, and deliberate disregard.
- Minch filed suit on September 7, 2007; district court granted summary judgment to Norbys, holding claims time-barred.
- District court held Minnesota § 541.051 two-year limitations for defective real-property improvements applied to all claims.
- Minch challenged which limitations period applied, accrual date, and potential tolling/continuing-trespass theories; punitive-damages request was denied as moot on appeal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Which statute of limitations applies? | Minch seeks § 541.02 (15 years) or § 541.05 (6 years) applicability. | Norbys argue § 541.051 two-year limit for improvements controls. | Two-year § 541.051 applies to all claims. |
| Accrual date under § 541.051 | Accrual not until 2004 when crop damage occurred. | Accrual began with discovery of injury, no later than 2000. | Accrual occurred by 2000; suit filed in 2007 is untimely. |
| Continuing trespass tolling | Continuing trespass tolls § 541.051 for injuries within limitations period. | Geary v. Miller and § 541.051 do not allow continuing-trespass tolling. | Continuing trespass tolling not applicable to § 541.051. |
| Tolling for BRRWD administrative remedies | Tolling while pursuing BRRWD remedies. | Administrative-exhaustion and exclusive-jurisdiction issues do not toll § 541.051 here. | No tolling; claims time-barred. |
| Mootness of punitive damages and scheduling-order request | Right to seek punitive damages and amend scheduling order should be preserved. | If claims are time-barred, punitive damages moot; scheduling-order issue resolves with merits. | Punitive-damages issue moot; scheduling-order issue unnecessary to decide. |
Key Cases Cited
- State Farm Fire & Cas. v. Aquila Inc., 718 N.W.2d 879 (Minn. 2006) (defines 'improvement to real property' for § 541.051 purposes)
- Nolan & Nolan v. City of Eagan, 673 N.W.2d 487 (Minn.Ct.App. 2003) (treatment of § 541.051 as controlling for improvements)
- Day Masonry v. Indep. Sch. Dist. 347, 781 N.W.2d 321 (Minn.2010) (discovery rule for accrual under § 541.051)
- Griebel v. Andersen Corp., 489 N.W.2d 521 (Minn. 1992) (defective-and-unsafe condition analysis for improvements)
- Siewert v. N. States Power Co., 793 N.W.2d 272 (Minn.2011) (injunctive-relief timing under § 541.051)
- Baribeau v. City of Minneapolis, 596 F.3d 465 (8th Cir.2010) (relevance of Minnesota Court of Appeals decisions)
- Hebert v. City of Fifty Lakes, 744 N.W.2d 226 (Minn.2008) (continuous-trespass damages under limitations)
- Baribeau v. City of Minneapolis, 596 F.3d 465 (8th Cir.2010) (precedent on state appellate decisions relevance)