Paving District 476 Group, SPCM, LLC v. City of Minot
2017 ND 176
| N.D. | 2017Background
- City of Minot proposed reconstructing 36th Ave NE; engineer’s report and City resolutions referenced improvements from 2nd St NE to 13th St NE, but some notices and letters described improvements ending at 10th St NE.
- City published resolutions, mailed letters, and held hearings in 2012–2015; City later sold warrants to finance the project in 2013.
- In 2015–2016 the City mailed proposed assessment amounts to property owners and held a special assessment commission hearing; some owners raised concerns the project area differed from earlier notices.
- Landowners sued in October 2015 seeking to invalidate assessments for the area between 10th and 13th Streets, alleging inadequate statutory notice, violation of due process, and a gift-clause violation because some benefited without paying.
- The district court granted the City’s motion to dismiss on summary judgment, holding the suit was time-barred by N.D.C.C. § 40-22-43 and the alleged notice defects did not amount to a constitutional violation.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Statutory notice under §40-22-15 (scope mismatch 10th vs 13th) | Notices misdescribed project extent; statutory notice violated | Notices and engineer’s report adequately referenced improvements to 13th; any irregularity is statutory only | Court assumed inconsistent descriptions but treated claim as statutory; action barred by §40-22-43 unless constitutional violation shown |
| Timeliness under §40-22-43 (30-day rule) | Statute of repose should not bar relief because notice defects deprived them of ability to object | §40-22-43 bars actions for defects/irregularities not filed within 30 days of resolution awarding sale of warrants | Action was not commenced within 30 days of the November 4, 2013 resolution awarding sale of warrants; suit barred by §40-22-43 |
| Due process challenge to notice | Defective notices violated procedural due process (no substantial, correct notice of expanded scope) | No constitutional right to notice at district-creation stage; due process requires notice/hearing only before final individual assessment | Court followed Serenko: no constitutional right to initial notice; only need notice/opportunity to be heard before assessment becomes final; plaintiffs did not show a due-process violation |
| Gift clause challenge (N.D. Const. art. X, § 18) | Beneficiaries between 10th–13th received improvements without assessment — an unlawful donation | Gift clause does not prohibit public internal improvements; project serves public purpose; incidental private benefit allowed | Court held gift clause does not reach ordinary public improvement projects; public-purpose requirement met; no constitutional barrier to §40-22-43 application |
Key Cases Cited
- Serenko v. City of Wilton, 593 N.W.2d 368 (N.D. 1999) (statutory notice defects do not automatically equal due-process violations; § 40-22-43 bars late challenges)
- Utley v. City of St. Petersburg, Fla., 292 U.S. 106 (U.S. 1934) (no constitutional right to be heard at the initial launching of a public improvement project)
- Mullane v. Central Hanover Bank & Trust Co., 339 U.S. 306 (U.S. 1950) (due process requires notice and opportunity to be heard where property interests are at stake)
- Haugland v. City of Bismarck, 818 N.W.2d 660 (N.D. 2012) (public improvements satisfy public-purpose requirement; incidental private benefit does not violate gift clause)