Northern States Power Co. ex rel. Board of Directors v. Aleckson
2013 Minn. LEXIS 277
| Minn. | 2013Background
- NSP sought to acquire easements for CapX2020 transmission line; several landowners elected under Minn.Stat. § 216E.12 to have NSP condemn their property in fee.
- After election, landowners sought minimum compensation under § 117.187 and relocation assistance under § 117.52.
- District court held benefits available; court of appeals reversed; Minnesota Supreme Court granted review.
- § 216E.12 allows owner to convert partial easement to a fee taking for a contiguous land portion; easement converted upon election.
- NSP used quick-take condemnation on some parcels; takings occurred before or as election converted easement to fee, triggering relocation-related entitlement.
- Court held landowners were entitled to both minimum compensation and relocation assistance and remanded for further proceedings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Are owners entitled to minimum compensation under §117.187 when they elect to condemn in fee under §216E.12? | Pudases (and others) must relocate; thus they “must relocate” and qualify for minimum compensation. | entitlement determined at petition filing; election after condemnation does not trigger minimum compensation. | Owners entitled to minimum compensation. |
| Are owners entitled to relocation assistance under §117.52 as displaced persons under the federal act? | Appellants satisfy the federal displaced-person definition and qualify for relocation assistance. | Not displaced persons if not permanently relocated per federal regulation. | Appellants entitled to relocation assistance. |
Key Cases Cited
- Moorhead Econ. Dev. Auth. v. Anda, 789 N.W.2d 860 (Minn. 2010) (compensation determined as of the time of the taking)
- State v. Pahl, 257 Minn. 177, 100 N.W.2d 724 (Minn. 1960) (compensation determined at taking, not filing)
- Coop. Power Ass’n v. Aasand, 288 N.W.2d 697 (Minn. 1980) (eases relocation by shifting costs to utility)
- Alexander v. U.S. Dep’t of Hous. & Urban Dev., 441 U.S. 39 (U.S. 1979) (acquisition must be 'for' a federal program or project)
- Frederick Farms, Inc. v. Cnty. of Olmsted, 801 N.W.2d 167 (Minn. 2011) (statutory interpretation cautions against adding extraneous exceptions)
- Genin v. 1996 Mercury Marquis, 622 N.W.2d 114 (Minn. 2001) (statutory interpretation principles)
- Caldas v. Affordable Granite & Stone, Inc., 820 N.W.2d 826 (Minn. 2012) (statutory interpretation and relevance of text)