Schumacher v. City of Excelsior
427 N.W.2d 235
Minn.
1988
Check Treatment

*1 аt 253. This at trial. offense SCHUMACHER, defense counsel is different

case James J. Arnold J. prosecutor Schumacher, did not con- suggested, Feinberg, and the H. Robert this, McDaniels, the cor- that if he had known Respondents, tradict and Ron history score, he would have rect criminal negotiated agreement with the different EXCELSIOR, CITY OF prosecutor whereby would have defendant Minnesota, Appellant. theft, severity pleaded guilty to level IV stayed carrying presumptive sen- No. C8-87-1890. offense tence. Supreme Court of Minnesota. Benson, controlling, find In which we Aug. 1988. parties made a mistake as to the defend- score, history the result ant’s criminal with agreed plead guilty defendant be-

lieving presumptive sentence 32-month, 41-month, sentence. We departing that the trial erred

held by imposing 32-month sen-

downward

tence, “The fact we added that ‍‌​​‌​​‌‌‌‌​‌‌​‌​​‌​​​​‌​‌​​‌​‌‌‌​‌​‌‌​‌‌​​‌‌‌‌‌​‍mistakenly misunderstood that

defendant presumptive 32 months sentence was * * * letting ground him would be guilty stand on plea

withdraw the charges.” original 330 N.W.2d

In this case there was mutual аs to what defendant’s criminal

mistake

history agreement plead was. score entirely assump

guilty was based on presumptive

tion that the sentence was a

stayed of this sentence. Because mistaken fact

assumption and because of the grounds upward

there were no for an de sentence,

parture presumptive from the

parties mistakenly believed issue left for the trial court was the

real

length probationary jail time that de

fendant had serve. Once the mutual ‍‌​​‌​​‌‌‌‌​‌‌​‌​​‌​​​​‌​‌​​‌​‌‌‌​‌​‌‌​‌‌​​‌‌‌‌‌​‍discovered, court, in the trial

mistake was

fairness, should have allowed defendant plea. his

withdraw summary, disagree rea-

In with the

soning appeals, of the court of but we

agree de- its ultimate conclusion that his plea.

fendant is entitled to withdraw ground.

Affirmed different

236 being by

ance paid the from various municipal parcels compris- funds. The four ing the Apartments Christmas Lake were $66,711.62. assessed appealed The owners to district court and, trial, parties agreed the issue was “the of amount the assessment and whether it in fair reflected an mar- increase ket value.” The property owners’ made appraisal no formal complex. He felt necessary it was not to determine market before-and-after value only question because the was whether the improvements property’s increased the Barrett, Radio, J. Thomas Thomas J. value, market Rely- whatever it be. for Minneapolis, appellant. ing primarily approach, on an income Berman, Harris, Frank R. Scott G. Min- expert conсluded that the assessment of neapolis, respondents. for $66,712.62 expense would be an additional operation by not recoverable increased improve- rentals. He felt the

ments did not increase market value but it. reduced One of owners OPINION gave testimony. city’s much the same The SIMONETT, Justice. exрert, hand, other on the an elaborate did found that the re- appraisal, utilizing before-and-after of one construction of its streets conferred approaches, three namely, traditional re- special subject no property, benefit on the value, sales, placement сomparable and in- special city assessment come. He concluded that the before-value against therefore, property was, void. $2,060,000, improve- was and that after the We reverse remand. $2,185,000, ments the value market was $125,000. increase of

Third Avenue in the of Excelsior runs in front Lake Apart- Christmаs accepted The trial court ments, building complex by owned re- the owners’ and found that “the witnesses spondent property In the owners. summer reasonable value of each the real approved plan council parcels same estate assessed was the after * * * by engineers which, submitted on Third completion project of the [as] Avenue, called installation of concrete completion project.” of said gutters, curbs and 8-inch water judge proper- Hence the trial held that main, sewer, repairs sanitary ty special no had received benefit and the systеm, storm sewer and a new bituminous city appealed assessment was void. The time, road surface. At the Third Avenue appeals, requested the court of which certi- had gutters. or It did have a curbs accepted fication to this court. We certifi- bituminous surface. was a 6-inch There stated, Broadly cаtion. the issue is wheth- sewer, water sanitary main and a but no er the evidence sustains the trial court’s simply storm Surface waters sewer. findings special and conclusion of no bene- along flowed or avenue to across the low fit. public hearing Septem- areas. held At the 23, 1984, respondent any

ber improvement, filed their “The cost or thereof, objections any part may upon proposed assessment. be assessed improvement, total cost of the was benefited ‍‌​​‌​​‌‌‌‌​‌‌​‌​​‌​​​​‌​‌​​‌​‌‌‌​‌​‌‌​‌‌​​‌‌‌‌‌​‍* * $514,061.89, percent upon 73 which based the benefits received about owners, (1986). against property assessed the bal- Minn.Stat. 429.051 To dеtermine §

237 benefit, taxing flow, resulting special water a reduc of a increase, (3) premiums; if fire tion insurance consider what authority must repairs pre sanitary sewer fair market any, there in the has been tenant losses land. Carlson- vent caused the sewers value of the benefited “backing (4) Windom, up”; the street Lang Realty v.Co. drainage, be (1976). plow, better easier 368, 369, Minn. *3 safer; and, (5) finally, would be the new A exceeds the ben special assessment that gutters, together curbs with the im by the as measured property, efit to the surface, proved street enhanced the aes and after in value before difference market appeal neighborhood. thetic All but taking property a of improvements, the is last of these the two reasons were discred of compensation in violation without fair all, ited cross-examination. First of it Buettner v. the fourteenth amendment. draining swimming shown that the was Cloud, 199, 277 202 St. N.W.2d of year onсe pool into the street caused no (1979). The in market is increase concerns, had environmental been autho willing by determining calculated what by city, rized the and there was indica circumstances, buyer, ordinary under not tion that the authorities would pay willing property seller for the would See practice to continue. permitted the before, after, improvement and then the Carlson-Lang Realty, 307 Minn. at Carlson-Lang Realty, has made. been (the slight possibility 240 N.W.2d at 520-21 369-70, 519; 307 Minn. at 240 N.W.2d at Ham, that the close down the owners’ Lake, 414 Dosedel N.W.2d system, especially private sewer and water (Minn.App.1987). 756 any that this in the absence evidence This involves the factual case might happen, make little difference would in improvements the issue of whether willing buyer property). the Sec to a property. the creased the market value of ond, assumption prop the expert’s the that ex Because an assessment which would premiums fire erty owners’ insurance in ceed the market value would be increase only speculative not be reduced was would taking of the owners’ unconstitutional disproved by other that was compensation, the tri property without fair new, main not larger water the al independent court makes an review bring gallon-per-minute capacity the the Buettner, the at evidence. N.W.2d capacity recom up the system to even half appellate “a consists of Our review Third, industry. by the insurance mended record ascer careful examination the sanitary assumption that exрert’s the the fairly tain a whole whether the evidence as repairs were a benefit overlooked sewer supports findings the district improvement the cost of fact that support con and whether these turn not includ by and was paid for was Carlson- judgment.” clusions law and in the assessments. ed Minn, 373, 240 Lang Realty, however, reason, given major The at 521. was in market value city for an increase Our careful examination of the new, property improved street. “[T]he persuades us as that the evidence a whole presence in the street af- much better has support findings judge’s does not the trial beforе,” testified situation versus ter in- in no resulted adding, “The road is city’s appraiser, in market value it as result looks neater up, and cleaned fairly complex. The record reflects rental.” will command a better appreciable some increase did occur. street, the old testified that appraiser also surface, “posed appraiser gave somewhat Here the several its broken * * * pedestri- for of an increase hazard to drivers reasons his of a value, swimming testimo- namely: (1) judge rejected this ans.” The trial com- street, He that the pool previously ny. had drained into reasoned because no assessable benefit plex received but now it would drain into the new storm already had benefit sewer; (2) property in- water main the new road, and, though the hearing, hard-surfaced even gutters. chose curbs and With city might be able to reduce its costs of the installation of gutters, curbs аnd catch repairs maintenance and because of the basins and a storm sewer were also neces- road, change this did not the beneficial sary dispose of the water. proper- service available to the users of the Significantly, appraiser both ty. reasoning We believe this is flawed. city and appraiser property for the based, all, premise on a It is first of factual agreed new street was an record, and, second, supported it improvement and property a benefit. The takes of the nature of a too narrow a view also conceded оn cross-ex- benefit. people willing amination that pay are The trial court Third Ave- assumed “for building nice, more that looks good nue bituminous surfaced road approach to is attractive.” improvements. city’s pub- Usually, if property receives better munici- testified, however, lic director wоrks *4 pal amenities, services and is it worth many complaints poor there were about the more. It is on the basis of common this Avenue; years surface of Third that experience prima that ‍‌​​‌​​‌‌‌‌​‌‌​‌​​‌​​​​‌​‌​​‌​‌‌‌​‌​‌‌​‌‌​​‌‌‌‌‌​‍the law confers facie seal-coating patching and had been ineffec- validity city’s to a detеrmination of assess- stop potholes tive to at break-up and all Buettner, able benefit. at 277 N.W.2d 204. year; seasons and that the street expert Here owners’ felt that the bene- very had little crown so that surface wa- fit of the new did street not increase the ters collect at edges on and street, property market value of the resulting because rents break-up in of the as- Further, phalt. it not appeared expert’s opinion that the street could be raised. The apartments in opened front of had based, been that rents could not be raised was patched many and for thе however, times installation testified, as he himself on his complex. lines service into the This assumption that old street not been had evidence was effectively never rebutted. potholes cracking, plagued with and an as- sumption proved support to that be without property had not Interestingly, in the record. the trial court prior seen Third improve- Avenue to its found that the ment. He was before-and-after market val- asked to assume the street previously same, had apparently been in the same ues credit- condition were not as part that of Third ing expert’s Avenue which extends market furthеr east into the of Shorewood. $97,- actually of the property dropped Apparently, the Shorewood has extension high While a 000. there is correlation be- improved not city yet been and the rental market and estate tween the real good in condition. public But Excelsior’s market, sоme caution must used be be- explained works director the Shore- perspectives long-term capital as to cause wood situation explana- was different. His subtly improvements may differ between tion description poor and his prior apartment renting and tenant an unit condition the Excelsior section apartment building. buyer purchasing an really disputed. street was never no Hence think, too, may the trial court We evidentiary credible support exists for the too view of consti- taken narrow a what implicit finding of the trial court Third Simply the street tutes benefit. because not Avenue did neеd a new surface. On had a bituminous surface cross-examination, property owners’ ex- necessarily surface does not bituminous pert conceded that if the street surface was disqualify improvement as an assessa- pock-marked breaking up, and this would so, city If were not ble benefit. negativе have a on the “appeal” effect almost be able to assess for never curbs, complex. As for the enhancing existing munici- updating or many persons, particu- the trial court said To whether pal infrastructure. determine larly setting, might prefer a suburban benefit, curbs; there is an curbs to or not assessable may but the converse also true, council, be city quality after condition street public actual in Hartle must be lowed this basic rule improvement and after the before Glencoe, 262, 226 303 Minn. N.W.2d 914 taken into account. (1975), court an in where the trial found case, that the conclude In this we crease in fair value after is benefit finding of assessable court’s zero was connected to water and sewer. is clear- supported by the evidence conflicting There was on that evi- introduced ly erroneous. noted, it is question, up “but to the prima part rebutted dence finder of fact resolve this cоnflict.” 303 testimony of supporting case and the facie Minn. at at 226 N.W.2d whole, evidence as appraiser. The im- however, least indicates judge similarly The trial here resolved in- created an street provements conflicting testimony, and evidence in the in market value supports major- recоrd his conclusion. The assessment exceeds complex. Whether the convincing, analysis may it is ity’s be be, this market value increase what possible to reevaluate trial court often amount, so, and, if remains be what reading and construct an alternative proceedings in further before determinеd view, my In we should not of the facts. reverse and remand the trial court. We judgment our on such a factual substitute ex- If the assessment this determination. reason, respect- I For that determination. increase, the trial the market value ceeds fully dissent. for reas- remands to the council determining the after first sеssment “[con- AMDAHL, Justice, dissenting. Chief *5 stitutionally] ceil- permissible assessment Popovich. of Justice join I the dissent Buettner, 277 N.W.2d at 205. ing.” Reversed and remanded. KELLEY, Justice, dissenting. Popovich. join I the dissent of Justice POPOVICH, (dissenting). Justice agree majority’s I state- While legal governing special principles

ment

assessments, majority decides ‍‌​​‌​​‌‌‌‌​‌‌​‌​​‌​​​​‌​‌​​‌​‌‌‌​‌​‌‌​‌‌​​‌‌‌‌‌​‍I think рroperly left to the

factual issue that is trial and the

trial court. Both the question

majority describe the or not purely case as factual: whether property’s increased the BRISBOIS, Respondent, R. James court, relying The trial market value. largely expert offered owners, and the both Barry Ideal Mutual CARTAGE spe- no increase value. The court found Company, Relators. Insurance “far cifically found the No. C9-88-516. more credible.” Minnesota. Supreme Court true in assessment cases It is examination of the conduct careful Aug. aas to determine whether the evidence findings. supports the trial court’s whole Carlson-Lang Realty Co. v. Win- 368, 373,

dom, Minn. (1976). not our disturb But it is role to simply

findings of because we fact conclusions than the

draw different set not be Findings of fact should

judge. clearly they are on review unless

aside fol- 52.01. We

erroneous. Minn.R.Civ.P.