HomeMy WebLinkAboutGeneral Administration_City Clerk_EASEMENTS_STIPULATIONS_RELEASESThis Instrument is Considered Exempt for Tax Purposes
EASEMENT FOR PUBLIC ROAD PURPOSES
THIS EASEMENT, made thie tia7N- day of March, 1980, by and
between Roger C. Evanson and Marilyn Evanson, husband i:nd wife,
parties of the first part, and the City of Edina, a municipal
corporation organized under the laws of the State of Minnesota,
party of the second part;
!9ITNESSETH: That the said parties of- the- first -hart, in
consideration of One and no/100 Dollar ($1.00) to them in hand paid
by the party of the second part, the receipt whereof is hereby
acknowledged, do Grant, Bargain, Sell, Convey, and Warrant to said
party of the second part an Easement in perpetuity for public road
purposes in, under, and over the following described property
situated in the County of. Hennepin, State of Minnesota, to -wit:
The East 33 feet of the West 38 feet of the South
1'8.6 feet of the North 981.6 feet of the West 224
feet of the Southeast Quarter of the Southwest
Quarter, Section 8, Township 116 North, Range 21 West.
IH WITNESS WHEREOF, the said parties of the first part
have hereunto set their hands and seals the day and year first above
written.
In Presence of:
RRg C. Evanson
Marilyn son
STATE OF. MINNESOTA) ss.
COUNTY OF HENNEPIN)
On this day of March, 1980, before me, a Notary
Public within and or County, personally appeared Roger C.
Evanson and Marilyn Evanson, husband and wife, to me known to be
the persons described in and who executed the foregoing instrument
and acknowledged that they executed the same as their free act and deed.
THIS INSTRUMENT WAS DRAFTED BY: DJ^
Curtis E. Austin, Attorney Notary Public
Suite 730, 7900 Xerxes Ave. S. _
Bloomington, FN 55431 ut'c,-1 C. iC,L-i
MettN Pc�! c, 'l •-r,L; � Q cn ry, Minn.
17y Comm ss.c•i Dcc. 1,% 1982
TRANSPM VENTEPEID
APR 22 1980
FWANCE Dll ri,_ 0,;
41H1k;tqNEP1N Cu ,
Poor Quality Document
Disclaimer
The original or copy of a document or page of a document
presented at the time of digital scanning contained within this
digital file may be of substandard quality for viewing, printing or
faxing needs.
This Instrument is Considered ExeMut for Tax Purposes
ecunA eecorder
�- 0,0j, l4�0
bcc ho , 1-15y?Rs �-
EASEMENT FOR PUBLIC ROAD PURPOSES
THIS EASEMENT, made this 7,77-y day of March, 1980, by and
between Roger C. Evanson and Marilyn Evanson, husband and wife,
parties of the first hart, and the City of Edina, a municipal
corporation organized under the laws of the State of Minnesota,
party of the second part;
WITNESSETH : That the said i .;r ties-�f--the fist a3 �; in
consideration of One and no/100 Dollar ($1.00) to them in hand 'Paid
by the party of the second part, the receipt whereof is hereby
acknowledged, do Grant, Bargain, Sell, Convey, and Warrant to said
party of the second part an Easement in perpetuity for public road
purposes in, under, and over the following described property
situated in the County of Hennepin, State of Minnesota, to -wit:
The East 33 feet of the Vest 38 feet of the South
148.6 feet of the North 981.6 feet of the [west 224
feet of the Southeast Quarter of the Southwest
Quarter, Section 8, Township 116 North, Range 21 West.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the said parties of the first Dart
have hereunto set their hands and seals the day and year first above
written.
In Presence of:
g C. Evanson
— G
Marilyn Ev son
STATE OF MINNESOTA) ss.
COUNTY OF HENNEPIN)
On this day of March, 1980, before me, a Notary
Public within and for said County, personally appeared Roger C.
Evanson and Marilyn Evanson, husband and wife, to me known to be
the persons described in and who executed the foregoing instrument
and acknowledged that they executed the same as their free act and deed.
THIS INSTRUMENT WAS DRAFTED BY:
Curtis E. Austin, Attorney
Suite 730, 7900 Xerxes Ave. S.
Bloomington, MN 55431
Notary Public
[ZAR;AN C. KRAUEL
hate:;, Fuojic, ,.e^.oepin Cc:.,nty, Minn.
M1:y Commission Exl-ires Dec. 17, 1982
TRANSFER ENTERED
APR 22 1
FINAN���
HEf�Lb G tf
I ,
&4 1. 1. u I
COIJ
�A:j
rn�jo7
.: , 4
4
off, 9�20, 1 J)
0-36 .-Is 76 L8
"A' 's3 - rJ
21 nr 530 0/ 'vo-J6 13 w E;
6
100 10 12,04669447 A 12001
oz;k%
MA
0
13: Sr %o r-
0111-
9% 0
0
C3 IS741
I -
% gil-
---------- 7 7j
15 Ac.
.700,
50,35 57 f zwll IN J-•
"y 1 61 1 q1 o..0;60
-4�� 09 ---
161
so
01
Cyl 3-96 192 31131
CA I
r
C URT
✓ 501
S-150 % I" ""Lli . - --b J.
15 8Z 50
✓c,
i 7oo) Ifo j23 , I
;501.9 Z66
;Z3J- :� 0' 7.
Z -7 3 2� 7
R 04 7Y
.50 u
;55
A -1y is INV
7.
c 0
z ojloalt'
c], c�
L 0 N G,.�tA r 1�7
Oil
'::'7 1544� 3- .0 11'^ WS& 't ?1' 9 sil
_JI 01
OL
of z Z": so
A P "I -a 0 v
-. . �p
1.54
trs ' 9 z 'o I ov
zt—
SHAUGHNESSY Ist ADD.;
rt
Sr Q_' �SHA'WHNE9�S' Q-
-- 5 'y' 9L4L
s
4� I 65
9 V
r 4
o
13
iv
91
c I
.$187 :tl-% S6 rxi
Qv
35
17-5 130 1 0
Nil) "/7 33
100 /00
0
so --olo
rL(
LY L E BUC HANAft
33 loa3 -2�
:5 1
•/00 10.990 �t
:E SO
In 14S F RENCE,ii-,, LANE t de�; I
A 7�4 701 100
z I . - - !R nols
0
0 -;ADD' rzi
151
0,
in
rj
7.9 foo 100 'ZI NO f9
-vv 736 44. NO, 09 26-vv 7
400 1 1�; DE 447 BLVD ld 100 L
5"l3 '21 'Il 0*16 11 V
20,
# 0 L "Ill 4 1-1�',-.- -I
26 39 2� R. U,
(D
4'!
v.
OUTLOT A
10 SS41
Lo
- . . . , -..z:l
a, X4
en
Instrument is Considerec. Exempt for Tax Purposes
EASEMENT FOR PUBLIC ROAD PURPOSES
THIS EASEMENT, made this Z�'Ty day of March, 1980, by and
between Roger C. Evanson and Marilyn Evanson, husband and wife,
parties of the first Dart, and the City of Edina, a municipal
corporation organized under the laws of the State of Minnesota,
party of the second part;
r .;
i'?ITNESSETH: That the said: j ar,��..., �f--th-e -fire p-�-t, in
consideration of One and no/100 Dollar ($1.00)- to them in hand paid
by the party of the second part, the receipt whereof is hereby
acknowledged, do Grant, Bargain, Sell, Convey, and Warrant to said
party of the second part an Easement in perpetuity for public road
purposes in, under, and over the following described property
situated in the County of Hennepin, State of Minnesota, to -wit:
The East 33 feet of the West 38 feet of the South
148.6 feet of the North 981.6 feet of the West 224
feet of the Southeast Quarter of the Southwest
Quarter, Section 3, Township 116 North, Range 21 West.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the said parties of the first part
have hereunto set their hands and seals the day and year first above
written.
In Presence oi:
R�g_eY C. Evanson
Marilyn Ev son
STATE OF MINNESOTA) ss.
COUNTY OF'HENNEPIN)
On this�� day of March, 1980, before me, a Notary
Public within and for said County, personally appeared Roger C.
Evanson and Marilyn Evanson, husband and wife, to me known to be
the persons described in and who executed the foregoing instrument
and acknowledged that they executed the same as their free act and deed.
THIS INSTRUMENT WAS DRAFTED BY:
Curtis E. Austin, Attorney
Suite 730, 7900 Xerxes Ave. S.
Bloomington, MN 55431
Notary Public
C. KPAUEL
Hntr'i�.f Public• Hennepin County, Minn.
Ac':y Commission Expires Dec:. 17,, 19a2
a
cm
STATE OF MINNESOTA DISTRICT COURT
COUNTY OF HENNEPIN 763 272 FOURTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT
Clarence A. Lowe,
Plaintiff,
AMENDED JUDGMENT
VS.
The First National Bank of Hopkins, a March 26, 1980
United States Corporation, all unknown
heirs of Joseph Roushar, deceased,
Amanda Roushar, Joseph Tesarek, Anna Tesarek,
Allan W. Garrison, Helen May Garrison,
aka Helen M. Garrison, John R. Paulson,
Lois V. Paulson, Nora K. Fergestad, Lancer
Stores, Inc., a Minnesota Corporation,
David E. Thomas, Jr., Virginia S. Thomas,
County of Hennepin, a body politic and
corporate -under the laws of the State of
Minnesota, Minnesota Gas Company, a
Delaware Corporation, Northwestern Bell
Telephone Company, an Iowa Corporation,
Morris Chaffen, Guaranty State Bank of
St. Paul, a Minnesota Corporation, the
United States of America, the City of
Edina, a Minnesota Corporation, Sonja
Lazear, Marcia Holabird and Mina Fergestad,
heirs of Marvin L. Fergestad, deceased,
also all unknown Heirs of Marvin L.
Fergestad, deceased, Allan W. Garrison
as. Trustee for Edina Estates, Inc., a
Minnesota Corporation, Bar-Ett Invest-
ment Company, a Partnership, M. L. Baratz
Investment Company, a Partnership, B. B.
& B. Investment Company, a Partnership,
Dupont Investment Company, a Partnership,.
also all other persons unknown claiming any
right, title, estate, interest or lien in the
real estate described in the Complaint herein.
Defendants.
The above -entitled action having been regulally placed upon the calendar
of the above -named Court for the September A.D. 1979 General Term thereof,
came on for trial before the Court on the 13th day of March, 1980, and the
Court, after hearing the evidence adduced at saiditrial and being fully advised
in the premises, did, on the 14th day of March, 180, duly make and file its
findings and order for judgment herein, and thereafter, on the 25th day of
March, 1980, the Court did make and file its order amending said judgment.
i
Now, pursuant to said order and on motion of, Barry L. Wittenkeller, Esquire,
Attorney for the plaintiff, IT IS HEREBY ADJUDGED AND DECREED:
1. That the plaintiff, Clarence A. Lowe is the owner of the property
described as follows, to -wit:
That part of the Northwest Quarter of the Northwest Quarter
of Section 7, Township 116, North, Range 21 West of the
5th Principal Meridian, Hennepin County Minnesota, described
as follows:
- 1 -
763 272
Beginning ,It a point i.n the West line of said Northwest
Quarter of said Northwest Quarter distant 663.35 feet south
of the Northwest corner thereof; thence Southerly, along said
west line of the Northwest Quarter of the Northwest Quarter to
t;he inter -section with a I ine drawn 50 feet northerly of,
measured at a right angle 'to and parallel with Line "A" herein-
after described; thence easterly, parallel with said Line "A"
to the intersection with a line drawn 33 feet easterly of,
measured at a right angle to and Parallel with the west line
of said Northwest Quarter of the Northwest Quarter; thence
northerly, along a line parallel with the west line of said
Northwest Quarter of the Northwest Quarter to a point therein
distant 30 feet northerly from Line "Z" hereinafter described;
thence deflecting to the right at an angle of 141 degrees 50
minutes 15 seconds, a distance of 32.37 feet, more or less,
to the intersection with a line drawn 53 feet easterly of,
measured at a right angle to and parallel with the west line
of said Northwest Quarter of the Northwest Quarter; thence
northerly, parallel with the west line of said Northwest
Quarter of the Northwest Quarter, a distance of 49.33 feet,
more 'or less, to the intersection with a line drawn 20 feet
southerly of, measured at a right angle to and parallel with
the southerly right of way line of vacated County Road No. 39;
thence northeasterly, along a line parallel with the southerly
right of way line of said vacated County Road No. 39, to the
intersection with a line 40 feet westerly of, measured at a
right angle to and parallel with Line "13" hereinafter described;
thence northerly along a line parallel with said Line "B" to an
intersection with a line drawn easterly from the point of
beginning and at a right angle to the west line of said North-
west Quarter of the Northwest Quarter; thence westerly, along
said right angle line, to the point of beginning.
Line "A":
Commencing at a point in the south line of the Southwest Quarter
of the Northwest Quarter of Section 7, Township 116, Range 21,
distant 437.5 feet cast of the southwest corner thereof; thence
northerly at an angle of.91 degrees 13 minutes (as measured
from West to North) to the intersection with the south line of
the Northwest Quarter of the Northwest Quarter of said Section
7; thence continue northerly, along last described course,
127.74 feet to the point of beginning of Line "A"; thence
deflecting to the left at an angle of 80 degrees a distance of
600 feet and there terminating.
Line "Z":
Commencing at the southwest corner of the Northwest Quarter
of Section 7, Township 116, Range 21; thence on an assumed
bearing of North 3 degrees 43 minutes 43 seconds west, along
the west line of said Northwest Quarter, a distance of 1617.90
feet to the point of beginning of Line "Z";.thence South 80
degrees 03 minutes 13 seconds cast, a distance of 213.23 feet
and there terminating.
Line "B":
Commencing at a point in the south line of the Southwest Quarter
of the Northwest Quarter of Section 7, 'rownship 116, Range 21,
distant 437.5 feet cast of the southwest, corner thereof; thence
northerly at an angle of' 91 degrees 13 minutes (as measured
from west to north), a distance of 1468.20 feet; thence
northwesterly, deflecting to the left, an angle of 80 degrees
00 minutes, a distance of 271.57 feet to the point of beginning
of Line "B"; thence northerly, deflecting to the right, an
angle of 93 degrees 30 minutes, a distance of 589.47 feet and
there terminating.
Also that part of the Northwest Quarter of the Northwest Quarter
of Section 7, Township 116, Range 21, Hennepin County, Minnesota
described as follows:
- 2 -
V
763 272
Commencing at the southwest corner of the Northwest Quarter of
said Section 7; thence on an assumed bearing of North 3 degrees,
43 minutes;..43 seconds West, along the west line of said North-
west Quarter, -.a distance of 1576.73 feet; thence South 80 degrees,
03 minutes, 13 seconds East along a line hereinafter referred
to as "Line X", a distance of 234.90 feet, thence North 13
degrees, 27 minutes, 33 seconds Last, along a line hereinafter
referred to as "Line Y", a distance of 40.08 feet to the inter-
section with a line parallel with and 40.00 feet northerly,
measured at a right IllglO, from said "Line X", and said .parallel
line to he hereinafter referred to as "Line Z"; thence Northerly
along said "Line Y" a distance of 199.97 feet, more or less, to
its intersection with the southerly right of way line of vacated
County Road No. 39, said point of intersection being the actual
point of beginning of the land to be described; thence Southerly
along said "Line Y" to the beginning of a curve concave to the
northwest having a radius of 36.00 feet, said "Line Y" and said
"Line Z" are tangent to said curve; thence southwesterly and
westerly along said curve to its point of tangency with said
"Line Z"; thence westerly along said "Line Z" to a point 30.00
feet easterly from its intersection with a line parallel with
and 33.00 feet east of the west line of said Northwest Quarter
of the Northwest Quarter; thence northwesterly to a point on
the last described parallel line 30.00 feet northerly from its
intersection with said "Li.ne Z"; thence north along the last
described parallel line to the southerly right of way line of
Vacated County Road No. 39; thence easterly along said right of
way line to the point of beginning. EXCEPT the northerly 20.00
feet of the ;above described land, and EXCEPT that part of the
above described land lying west of a line. 53.00 feet cast from
and parallel with the west line of said Northwest Quarter of
the Northwest Quarter.
2. That the defendants have no right, nor claim, nor interest in said
property with the exception of those rights reserved by Stipulation between
Plaintiff and defendants, County of Hennepin, a body politic and corporate
under the laws of the State of Minnesota, Minnesota Gas Company, a Delaware
Corporation, and City of Edina, a Minnesota Corporation filed with the Court.
JUDGMENT ROLL
AMFNDH):
pi►,,,' March 26, 1980
moo_,_�•r4*
BY THE COURT
DISTRICT COURT ADMINISTRATOR
By
Deputy
- 3 -
EASEMENT FOR PUBLIC ROAD PURPOSES
This Instrument is Exempt From State Deed Tax
THIS EASEMENT, made this day of March, 1980, by and
between Roger C. Evanson and Marilyn Evanson, husband and wife,
parties of the first part, and the City of Edina, a municipal
corporation organized under the laws of the State of Minnesota,
party of the second part;
WITNESSETH: That the said parties of the first part, in
consideration of One and no/100 Dollar ($1.00) to them in hand paid
by the party of the second part, the receipt whereof is hereby
acknowledged, do Grant, Bargain, Sell, Convey, and Warrant to said
party of the second part an Easement in perpetuity for public road
purposes in, under, and over the following described property
situated in the County of Hennepin, State of Minnesota, to -wit:
The East 33 feet of the West 38 feet of the South
148.6 feet of the North 981.6 feet of the West 224
feet of the Southeast Quarter of the Southwest
Quarter, Section 8, Township 116 North, Range 21 West.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the said parties of the first part
have hereunto set their hands and seals the day and year first
above written.
In the Presence of:
Roger C. Evanson
Marilyn Evanson
STATE OF MINNESOTA) ss.
COUNTY OF HENNEPIN)
On this day of March, 1980, before me, a Notary
Public within and for said County, personally appeared Roger C.
Evanson and Marilyn Evanson, husband and wife, to me known to be
the persons described in and who executed the foregoing instrument
and acknowledged that they executed the same as their free act and
deed.
THIS INSTRUMENT WAS DRAFTED BY:
Curtis E. Austin, Attorney
Suite 730, 7900 Xerxes Ave. S.
Bloomington, MN 55431
EASEMENT FOR ROADWAY PURPOSES
THIS INDENTURE made and entered into this day of
February, 1980, by and between Roger C. Evanson and Marilyn
Evanson, husband and wife, parties of the: first part, and
Warren E. Hanson and Sarah L. Hanson, husband and wife, parties
of the second part,
WITNESSETH: That said parties of the first part in
consideration of One Dollar ($1.00) and other good and valuable
consideration to them in hand paid by the said parties of the
second part, receipt of which is hereby acknowledged, do hereby
grant, bargain, sell, convey, and warrant to said parties of the
second part, their successors and assigns, an easement in
perpetuity for roadway purposes in, over and across the following
described property situated it the County of.Hennepin, State of
Minnesota, to -wit:
Commencing at a point along the North line,
10 feet East of the West line, thence easterly
to a point 26 feet East of the West line, _
then at right angles South 148.6 feet to a point
on the South line 26 feet East of the West line;
thence westerly to a point 10 feet East of the
West line, then at right angles North 148.6 feet
to a point on the North line 10 feet East of the
-West line, which is the point of beginning, of
the South 148.6 feet of the North 981.6 feet of the
West 48 feet of the Southeast 1/4 of the Southwest
1/4 of Section 8, Township 116 North, Range 21
West.
Said easement to be appurtenant to and run in favor of the
following described property situated in the County of Hennepin,
-1-
State of Minnesota, to -wit:
The South 100 feet of the North 833 feet of
the East 415 feet of the West 448 feet of
the Southeast 1/4 of the Southwest 1/4 of
Section 8, Township 116N, Range 21W.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the said first parties have caused
these presents to be executed the day and year first above
written.
In the Presence of:
STATE OF MINNESOTA )
) ss.
rnuwTY OF HENNEPIN )
e.
� � I
R6get C. Evanson
Marilyn EyCanson
On this 92-?MLday of , 1980, before me,
a Notary Public within and or Kitdd�Co y, personally appeared'
Roger C. Evanson and Marilyn Evanson, usband and wife, to me
known to be the persons described in and who executed the
foregoing instrument and acknowledged that they executed the
same as their free act and deed. MARIAN C. KRAUEL
NotaFy Public, Hennepin County, Minn.
%jy Commission Expires Dec. 17, 198
THIS INSTRUMENT WAS DRAFTED BY:
Trygve A. Egge
Attorney at Law
2116-2nd Avenue South
Mpls., MN 55404
-2-
c 'k,
EASEMENT FOR PUBLIC ROAD PURPOSES
THIS INSTRUMENT, Made this day of February, 1980,
by and between Roger C. Evanson and Marilyn Evanson, husband
and wife, parties of the first part, and the City of Edina, a
municipal corporation organized under the laws of the State of
Minnesota, party of the second part;
WITNESSETH, That the said parties of the first part, in
consideration of One and no/100 Dollars ($1.00) to them in hand
paid by the said party of the second part, the receipt whereof
is hereby acknowledged, do Grant, Bargain, Sell, Convey, and
Warrant to said party of the second part an Easement in
perpetuity for public road purposes in, under, and over the
following described property situate in the County of Hennepin
and State of Minnesota, to -wit:
Commencing at a point along the North line,
10 feet East of the West line, thence easterly
to a point 26 feet East of the West line,
then at right angles South 148.6 feet to a point
on the South line 26 feet East of the West line;
thence westerly to a point 10 feet East of the
West line, then at right angles North 148.6 feet
to a point on the North line 10 feet East of the
West line, which is the point of beginning, of
the South 148.6 feet of. the North 981.6 feet of the
West 48 feet of the Southeast 1/4 of the Southwest
1/4 of Section 8, Township 116 North, Range 21 West.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the said parties of the first part have
hereunto set their hands and seals the day and year first above
written.
In Presence of:�
C
.l t
g C. Evanson
Ma lyr;/�Evanson
-1-
STATE OF MINNESOTA
ss.
COUNTY OF HENNEPIN )
On thisday of 1980, before me,
a Notary Public within and for said Co y, personally appeared
Roger C. Evanson and Marilyn Evanson, husband and wife, to
me known to be the persons described in and who executed the
foregoing instrument, and acknowledged that they executed the
same as their free act and deed. MARIAN C. KRAUEL
Notec, Public, H.—IneFi❑ County; Minn. /
My COmmiss;OFI LApc v, Dec. ,7, 198Z
THIS INSTRUMENT WAS DRAFTED BY:
Trygve A. Egge
Attorney at Law
2116-2nd Avenue South
Minneapolis, Minnesota 55404
EASEMENT FOR PUBLIC ROAD PURPOSES
THIS EASEMENT, made this 2,?7-q day of March, 1980, by and
between Roger C. Evanson and Marilyn Evanson, husband and ,wife,
parties of the first part, and the City of Edina, a municipal
corporation organized under the laws of the State of Minnesota,
party of the second part;
WITNESSETH: That the said part- es .:,f the first part; -in
consideration of One and no/100 Dollar ($1.00) to them in hand paid
;by the party of the second part, the receipt whereof is hereby
acknowledged, do Grant, Bargain, Sell, Convey, and Warrant to said
party of the second part an Easement in perpetuity .for public road
purposes in, under, and over the following described property
situated in the County of Hennepin, State of Minnesota, to.=wit:
The East 33 feet of the West 38 feet of the South
148.6 feet of the North 981.6 feet of the West 224
feet of the Southeast Quarter of the Southwest
Quarter, Section 8, Township 116 North, Range 21 West.
IN i^FITNESS WHEREOF, the said parties of the first part
have hereunto set their hands and seals the day and year first above
written.
In Presence of:
Lie
Rog-' C . Evanson
L _
Marilyn Ev son
STATE OF MINNESOTA) ss.
COUNTY OF HENNEPIN)
. On this day of March, 1980, before me, a Notary
Public within and or said County, personally appeared Roger C.
Evanson and Marilyn Evanson, husband and wife, to me known to be
the persons described in and who executed the foregoing instrument
and acknowledged that they executed the same as their free act and deed.
THIS INSTRUMENT WAS DRAFTED BY:
Curtis E.,
Austin, Attorney
Suite 730, 7900 Xerxes Ave. S.
Bloomington, MN 55431
1
1
Notary Public
MARIAN C. KRAUEL
►dnt?i;, Public, ,. ..._:(: 0,;unzy, Minn.
%Ni) :'amr;iiss;c i :::ire Dec. 17, 1982
EASEMENT FOR ROADWAY PURPOSES
THIS EASEMENT, made this day of March, 1980, by and
between.Roger C. Evanson and Marilyn Evanson, husband and wife,
Parties of the first part, and Warren E. Hanson and Sarah L. Hanson,
husband and wife, parties of the second part;
WITNESSETH: That said parties of the first part in
consideration of One and no/100 Dollar ($1.00) and other good and
valuable consideration to them in hand paid by the said parties of
the second part, receipt of which is hereby acknowledged, do hereby
Grant, Bargain, Sell, Convey, and Warrant to said parties of the
second part, their successors and assigns, an easement in perpetuity
for roadway purposes in, over and across the following described
property situated in the County of Hennepin, State of Minnesota,
to -wit:
The East 33 feet of the West 38 feet of the South
148.6 feet of the North 981.6 feet of the liest 224
feet of the Southeast Quarter of the Southwest
Quarter, Section 8, Township 116 North, Range 21 WTest.
Said easement to be appurtenant to and run in .favor of the following
described property situated in the County of Hennepin, State of
Minnesota, to -wit:
The South 100 feet of the North 833 feet of the
East 415 feet of the West 448 feet of the Southeast
Quarter of the Southwest Quarter of Section 8,
Township 116 North, Range 21 West.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the said parties have caused these
presents to be executed the day and year first above written.
In the Presence of:
Roger C. Evanson
Marilyn Evanson
STATE OF MINNESOTA)
COUNTY OF HENNEPIN) ss.
On this day of March, 1980, before me, a Notary
Public within and for said County, personally appeared Roger C.
Evanson and Marilyn Evanson, husband and wife, to me known to be
the persons described in and who executed the foregoing instrument
and acknowledged that they executed the same as their free act and
deed.
THIS INSTRUMENT WAS DRAFTED BY:
Curtis E. Austin, Attorney
Suite 730,: 7900 Xerxes Ave. S.
Bloomington, MN 55431
9-�
r
EASEMENT FOR PUBLIC ROAD PURPOSES
THIS EASEMENT, made this day of March, 1980, by and
between Roger C. Evanson and Marilyn Evanson, husband and wife,
parties of the first part, and the City of Edina, a municipal
corporation organized under the laws of the State of Minnesota,
party of the second part;
WITNESSETH: That the said parties of the .first part, in
consideration of One and no/100 Dollar ($1:.00) to them in hand paid
by the party of the second part, the receipt whereof is hereby
acknowledged, do Grant, Bargain, Sell, Convey, and Warrant to said
party of the second part an Easement in Perpetuity .for public road
purposes in, under, and over the following described property
situated in the County of Hennepin, State of Minnesota, to -wit:
The East 33 feet of the West 38 feet of the South
148.6 feet of the North 981.6 feet of the West 224
feet of the Southeast Quarter of the Southwest
Quarter, Section 8, Township 116 North, Range 21 West.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the said parties of the first Part
have hereunto set their hands and seals the day and year first above
written.
In Presence of:
Roger C. Evanson
Marilyn Evanson
THIS INSTRUMENT WAS DRAFTED BY:
Curtis E. Austin, Attorney
Suite 730, 7900 Xerxes Ave. S.
Bloomington, MN 55431
� A
Oct. 27, 1981
Dear Council Member,
I am writing this letter to you regarding a sincere concern my wife
and I have over our property rights. For the second time since we
a-ccquired our property on August 4, 1976, a private individual
wants to attack our ownership for his (their) personal financial
gain. The developers of the proposed "rtarthe. Woods hill Addition"
(see attached sheet)are trying to ret the Edina Planning Commission
to approve their subdivision proposal. The FPC has turned down t'ne
proposal subject to the developer accoutring a portion of my
residential property. Rather then contacting us for some eauitable
solution to the problem, the developer seems bent on circumventing
our rights by enlisting the City of Edina's help in condemning our
property. Is it within the realm of judicious reason. that. one
private party can confiscate another private property owner's land
to venerate a profit?? The imrlications .are frightning!!!!!
We are not concerned about a legal contest with the developer. We
will feel betrayed by the City of Edina if they become a party in
st-te► rt.i.n;r to confiscate our land.
4:e are not tryinrr to block the develor.ment of the proposed subdivision.
Please understand that the rAo• fired imrrovernents nee�'ed to facilitate.
the will put a t-o;L11y needless rurden on four other
property o- ners for the enrichment of the develorer!! ' We say ITO!
Let us sit down and reason together and work out sor,F equitable
sol: Dior.
My wife Pn�i I want to invite you out to our residence to look over
the situation for yourself.*I will c-ll you for an arpointmen.t.
Needless to say, we are deeply concerned over this matter. ;•'aybe we
can avoid the legal cost of ret-nininq the rights to our leF7aly
acer.,.iired residence.
Sincerely,
Roger C. rv-"nson Res: 941 5979
7717 V-arth Court Bus: 544 9591
Edinn, Nn. 55'+35
A G E N D A
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AND PLANNING COMMISSION
WEDNESDAY, SEPTERIBER 30, 1981, AT 7:30 P.M.
EDINA CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS
I. OLD BUSINESS:
Z-81-5 Community Development Corporation R-1 Single Family
Dwelling District to SR-5 Senior Citizen Residence District.
Overall Development Plan. Amendment. Generally located North
of Parklawn Avenue and West of York Avenue, and gererally
described as the North 1/2 of the 'Vest 1/2 of the Northwest 1/2
of the Northeast 1/4 of the Southwest 1/4 of Section 32, Town-
ship 028, Range 24 and the East 160 feet of the North 1/2 of
the Northeast 1/2 of the Northwest 1/4 of the Southwest 1/4 of
Section 32, Township 028, Range 24.
11. NEW BUSINESS:
Z-81-7 J.H.E. Associates, Inc., R-1 Single Family Dwelling District to
& 0-1 Office. Building District. Lots 1,2,E3, Block 1, Braewood
LD-81-15 Park. Generally located east of County Road 18 and south of
Braemar Park.
Z-81-8 Darrel A. Farr Development Corp., R-1 Single Family Dwelling
E District to 0-1 Office Building District.
S-81-13 Lincoln Office.Center. Generally located in the Northeast quad-,
rant of County Road 18 and West 7th Street, and generally
described as part of Tracts .A & B, Registered Land Survey No. 246.
Z-81-9 Byron S Kathleen Recke. C-4 to C-1. Commercial District.
.Lots 11 and 12, Block 22, Fairfax Addition. Generally located
at Valley View,Road and Oaklawn Avenue.
S-81-12 Marthe Woods Hill Addition. Generally located north of West
78th Street and west of Marth Road, and generally described
Ps the east 132 feet -)f the South 1/2 of the Southwest 1/4 of
the Southwest 1/4 of Section 8, Township 116, Range 21.
-81-14 Lot 11, Block 7, Braemar Hills 9th Addition. Generally located
west of Gleason Roao and north of 'Vest 78th Street.
LD-81-16 Lot 6, Block 7, Brae-nar Hills 9th Addition. Generally located
west of Gleason Road and north of West 78th Street.
Amendment to the C-1 Commercial District of .the Zoning Ordinance to allow
Child Day Care as _a principal use.
111. NEXT MEETING DATE:
October. 28, 1981, at 7:30 p.m.
IV. ADJOURNMENT
I
ERTIFICATE OF SURVEY
LAND SURVEYORS
S713 OLWO"T Awsodut WUTW
They -want to help themselves to
this entire end of our property
M EIR i P A DT
to develop their property
�7
7h themselves 0
They -want want e PrOT) s property
e
this
entire
f ou .r to develop:
10 PrOT) rty
de e e
4%� 11ZO
Iss,
X
ZZ9
0-Y
Description: The South IhS.6, feet of the North 981,6-
feet of the West 2a .0 fee' of the Sast half of
the Southwest Quarter of Section F,,Townshlp.'-
116, Range 21..
4e hereby certify that this is a true and correct representation of a survey
of the boundaries of the land above described and of the location of all
buildings, if any, thereon and all visible encroachments, if any., from or on
said land. This survey is made only in connection with a mortgage loan now
being placed on the property and no liability is assumed except to -the holder
Of such mortgage or any other interest acquired by the raason of such mortg34
it; is understood and agreed no monuments -have been set for the purpose of,..,
establishing lot lines or boundary corners. Dated this 30th day.of June,
19760.
b
nnes a il-C-13tration :10. 9018-
V/t ly Flr•I�11�L /7f4�s _ .
ADO?Ti:� L/Nf Oj THE �% Lim
THE S//.'if LicTiYE5,0�!j Of _
SEG. B.
Ile
z frf
• 1
IQL
t 1
•
�a o
1 r
• «U/eT r;.
S
1•� 33
0 •
o o �
r -
•
S
•� -~
h�
------/3zoo- -•
11
SO[/1.V L/f(/f Lt�TX�f sdl% A�
June 30, 1980
Trygve A. Egg.e, Esq.
Merrill House
2116 2nd Avenue South .
Minneapolis, Minnesota 55404
,Re: Evanson v. Hanson v. City of Edina
Your File: 2201
Dear Mr. Egge:
As you may know, Mr. Lindstrom is out of the office
until July 7, 1980. In the meantime I am handling some of his'
business affairs.
I have discussed with Mr. Lindstrom your refusal to
execute a Stipulation of Dismissal With Prejudice in the
above -referenced matter. Mr. Lind-strom informed me that
throughout the course of settlement discussions, he operated
on the assumption that as a result of the settlement, all
claims against the City,of Edina would be discharged in full.' i..
A Stipulation of Dismissal Without Prejudice would fail' to
accomplish that goal, and would enable the Evansons to -
recommence -an action against the City of Edina arising out
of the same transactions and.occurrences that were the subject
of the initial lawsuit. For these,reasons, Mr. Lindstrom is
unwilling to sign a Stipulation of Dismissal Without Prejudice,
and insists that the dismissal be with prejudice as to both
parties.
Please contact me.if I can be of assistance -in
clarifying this matter: However,, since Mr. Lindstrom will
return to,the office on July 7, 1980,"the most productive
course,might-be if you and he take the matter up next week.
Very truly yours, `
JCraig D. Diviney
CDD : sp ;
"GVE A. EGGE
.rTORNEY AT LAW
June 20, 1980
Mr. John Lindstrom
Dorsey Law Firm
2300 First National. Bank Building
Minneapolis, Minnesota 55402
RE: Evanson v. Hanson v. City of Edina
My File: 2201
Dear Mr. Lindstrom:
,Apt 2 3 1910
MERRILL HOUSE
2116 2nd Avenue South
Mpls., MN 55404
(612) 871-6470
Enclosed herewith for your signature please find an original
and two copies of a Stipulation of Dismissal Without Prejudice.
I am not authorized to sign a Stipulation of Dismissal With
Prejudice. Please sign and retain one copy and send one signed
copy back to this office. Also would you please take care of
filing the original with the Court.
Sincer ly,
f�
/ 7v
r A. E e'
Attorney at Law
TAE/cp
Enclosures
cc: Mr. and Mrs. Evanson
y
y
i
June 18, 1980
/
Trygve A. Egge, Esq.
Merrill House
'2116 2nd Avenue South -
S
Minneapolis, Minnesota 55404
Re:' Hanson v.' Evanson v. City of Edina'
Your File 2201
Dear Mr. Egge:
I, am writing for Mr. Lindstrom who is out o-f town
until July 7, 1980.
I am in receipt of your letter of June 11, 1980
with enclosures. Mr. Lindstrom has requested -,that I return
to you the Stipulationof'Dismissal.without Prejudice and
will require a Stipulation of Dismissal With -Prejudice,'
which I have'enclosed.� Please' -execute the Stipulation and
return it to me.
I hope.this has not caused .you any -inconvenience.
If you have- any questions ,or comments please do not hesitate
to call. s
-Sincerely.."
' Sue Prazak
Secretary to Mr. Lindstrom
sp
Enclosure
h ,
"RYGVE A. EGGE
ATTORNEY AT LAW
June 11, 1980
Mr. John H. Lindstrom
Dorsey Law Firm
2300 First National Bank Building
Minneapolis, Minnesota 55402
RE: Hanson v. Evanson v. City of Edina
My File: 2201
Dear Mr. Lindstrom:
JUN 13 is"
MERRILL HOUSE
2116 2nd Avenue South
Mpls- MN 55404
(612) 871-6470
Enclosed herewith for your signature please find an original and
two copies of Stipulation of Dismissal Without Prejudice. I would
appreciate it if you would sign the Stipulation,. retain one copy
for your file and return one fully signed copy to me for my file.
Also, would you kindly take care of filing the original with the
Court?
Thank you for your cooperation.
Sincerely,
Trygver' A Egge
Attorney at Law
TAE/mmc
ENC.
Juice 3, 1960
Mr. Gordon L. Hughes
Mr. Francis Hoffman
Mr. Harold Sand
4601 West 50th Street
Edina, Minnesota 55424
Re: Hanson v. Evanson v. City of Edina
Gentlemen:
Apparently, some confusion has arisen out of the
outcome of the Marth Road matter. The City should have
received, according to our records, a copy of the Easement
for Public Road Purposes granted by the Evansons to the
City of Edina. I have enclosed a copy,of the Easement for
each of you and trust that this resolves the ambiguity.
The Dorsey Real Estate Department informs me that
::lie Easement was recorded on 4/22/80 as Document No. 4557858
and that the original document was returned to the City on
5/6/80.
Please contact me if you have any questions.
Sincerely,
John H. Lindstrom
JHL : sp
Enclosure
NOTES OF TELEPHONE CALL
to
Others
Date_ `7� -"? c� Time Phone
RE:
a
MEMORANDUM
TO: Thomas S. Erickson
FROM: Marit K. Meister
DATE: April 23, 1980
RE: City of Edina - Easement (Evanston, Pt of 8-116-21)
I filed the Easement with the Hennepin County Recorder on
April 22, 1980. It was given Document No. 4557858.
The owners were correct on the Easement - Roger C.
Evanson and Marilyn B. Evanson, husband and wife, as joint tenants.
Marilyn's middle initial was not included on the Easement, though.
They own the South 148.6 feet of the North 981.6 feet of the West
224 feet of the Southeast Quarter of the Southwest Quarter, Section
8, Township 116 North, Range 21 West, Hennepin County, Minnesota.
Their is one mortgage of record, which Evansons assumed.
The Mortgage was in favor of Eberhardt Company, a Minnesota corporation.
It was dated September 20, 1972, and filed September 28, 1972,
as Document No. 3973734 and was assigned to Commercial Federal Savings
and Loan Association by Assignment dated October 10, 1972, filed
October 13, 1972, as Document No. 3976694.
/kb
V
&/,0 - 60151-Atfe
MAY 0 8 1980
May 7, 1980
Mr. John H. Lindstrom
Dorsey, Windhorst, Hannaford,
Whitney & Halladay
2300 First National Bank Building
Minneapolis, Minnesota 55402
RE: Hanson vs. Evanson vs. City of Edina
Dear John:
Enclosed please find the Release properly executed by the Hanson's.
I am not certain of the purpose of this particular Release, but I
have no objection to it. The Stipulation of Dismissal has already
been executed in regard to the Warren E. Hanson and Sarah L. Hanson,
Plaintiffs, versus, Roger C. Evanson and Marilyn Evanson. It is
my understanding none of .the third -party pleadings were filed,and
no Stipulation of Dismissal was necessary. However, if you would
prefer to have a Stipulation drafted, please let me know, and we
will prepare it.
Sincerely,
d'a
Curtis E. Austin
CEA:ss
Enclosure
DORSEY, WINDHORST, HANNAFORD, WHITNEY a HALLADAY
HENRY F. ..( TMOMAS C MOC 2300 FIRST NATIONAL BANK BUILDING JAMES A. FLADER
JULE M hANNAFDRD JAMS M 0HAGAN
ARTHUR B. WHITNEY
JONN M.MASON
RUSSELL W LINDOUIST
LOREN R. KNOTT
DAVID R. BR..A
PHILLIP N MARTIN
HORACE "ITCH
RE, SE C JOHNSON
ROBERT J. JOHNSON
CNARLES J. HAUENSTCIN
MAYNARD B-HASSELOUIST
CNARLES A GEER
PETER DORSEY
JOHN C-ZWAKMAN
GEORGE P FLAN NERY -
JOHN R. WICKS
CUR715 L. ROY
EUGENE L. JOHNSON
ARTH UP E. WEISBERG
JOHN W. WINDMORST, JR,
DUANE E, JOSEPH
MICHAEL PRICHARD
JAMES B. VCSSEY
JOHN P. VI7KO
WILLIAM A. WHITLOCK
WILLIAM R. SOTM
EDWARD J. SCMWAPTZBAUER RICMARD G. SWANSON
THOMAS M. BROWN
FAITH L. OMMAN
CORNELIUS 0. MAHONEY. JR. DAVID A PANNE IN
WILLIAM C. BABCOCK
ROBERT J. SILVERMAN
THOMAS S ERICKSON
THOMAS R. MANTHEY
MICHAEL E. BRESS
WILLIAM R. MIBBS
RAYMOND A. REISTER
PHILIP F. BOEL7ER
JOHN J, TAYLOR
WILLIAM B. PAYNE
WILLIAM J. HEMPEL
ROBERT A NEI8ERG
JOHN S, MIBBS
JOHN D. KIRBY
ROBERT O.FLOTTEN-
ROBERT A SCHWAPTZBAUER
JOHN D. LEVINE -
DAVID N. FRONEK
ROBERT J. STPUYK
THOMAS W TINKHAM
MICHAEL A OLSON
JON F. TUTTLE
LARRY W JOHNSON
EMERY W. BARTLE
THOMAS S. MAY
WILLIAM A, JOHNSTONE
G. LARRY GRIFFITH
STEVEN K. CHAMPLIN
CRAIG A BECK
MICHAEL J. RADMER
DAVID L MCCUSKEY
MICHAEL TRUCANO
M I N N E A P O L I S, MINNESOTA S S 4 0 2
(612) 340-2600
CABLE: DOROW
TELEX: 29-0605
TELECO PIER:(612) 340-2866
860 W-FIRST NATIONAL BANK BLDG
ST. PAUL,MINNF.SOTA 56101
1612) 227-8017
118 THIRD STREET SOUTHWEST
ROCHESTER, MINNESOTA SS901
(507) 286-3166
312 FIRST NATIONAL BANK BLDG
WAYZATA, MINNESOTA 65391
(6121 476 - 0373
May 2, 1980
Mrs, FlorencelR. Hallberg
City Clerk
City of Edinal
4801 West 50tYi Street
Edina, Minnesita 55424
Dear Mrs. Hallberg:
I
Enclosed herewith are
were filed with Hennepin County:
MKM/kb
enclosures
DAVID L BOEHNEN
MICMEL A LAFOND
DON D CARLSON
PAUL J-SCHEERER
WILLIAM J. KEPPEL
FRANK H. VOIGT
WILLIAM M, MIPPECJR.
ROBERT A BURNS
ROGER J. MAGNUSON
PETER S. MENDRIASON
JAY F. COOK
STANLEY M-REIN
CNARLES L POTUZNIK
VERLANE L. ENDORF
DENNIS P. BURATTI
ROBERT L MOB BINS
BARRY D. GLAZER
IRVING WEISEA
STEPMEN E. GOTTSCHALK
KENNETH L. CUTLER
OWEN C. MARA
J.ROBERT M1813
S
MICHAEL L MURPHY
WRY M.JOMNSON
ROBERT G SAYER
SUZANNE B, VAN DYK
STUART R-HEMPHILL
J DAVID JACK50N
W CNARLES LANK
STEVEN F. WOLWMOT,
J.MAROUIS EASTWOOD
E DWARD J. RUINER
JAMES E. BOWLUS
the following documents that
THOMAS D VANDER MOLEN
MARK A JARBDE
PAUL E KLAAS
MARGERY K, OTTD
RONA:D J BROWN
MARC L KRUGER
CATHERINE A BARTLETT
DAVID J. LUBBEN
BRUCE J. SMNIDER
GEORGE G. ECF
DARRON C. KNUTSON
BARBARA B. FARRELL
LENZA MCELRATM. JR
MARIANNE D. SHORT
MICHAEL E. PCESLU14D
ELIZABETH A, GOODMAN
MARIANNE E- DURKIN
JONN K. ELLINGBOE
ROBERT J DWYER, JR.
BRIAN L NOPONALL
BRIAN L PALMER
MICHAEL T. WESTERMEYER
JEROME P, GILLIGAN
DIANE D. MALFELD
DEBORA. S. KLEINMAN
WILLIAM J. BERENS
JAMES D-ALT
OF COUNSEL
WALDO F. MAROUART
JOHN F, FINN
1. Notice of Completion of Proceedings on Street
Vacation Antrim Road Cattested copyl filed
with the Registrar of Titles on April 22, 1980,
in Vol. 1565 of Register of Titles, Page
472538 as Document No. 1378673.
2, Easement covering part of SE Quarter of SW
Quarter.8,-116-21 Coriginall from Roaer C.
Evanson and arilyn Evanson, dated March 28,
11980, and filed Apri 22, 1980, as Document
No, 4557858,
Very truly yours,
Marit K. Meister
Assistant to Thomas S, Erickson
1
April 21,'1950 i
,Curtis L. Austin, Esq.
Northwestern Financial Center
Suite 730 ,
7900 Xerxes Avenue South '
Minneapolis, Minnesota 55431 -
Trygve 'A. Egge, , Esq.
mer.rill ,arouse
211.6 grid . Avenue South
Minneapolis, Mil.3ne-sota 5540.4
Re: Hanson v. Evanson v. City of ;dina
Dear Mr. Austin and Mr. Egge: _
Please instruct your clients to execute the -enclosed
and return to me at your.convenience.' Also, could you draft'
a stipulation of dismissal- and forviard sane to. me.
Sincerely,
~ John 1-1. Lindstrom.
JHL: sp,
_Enclosures i
ef/I-"a"-7166
An 2 1110
April 18, 1980
Mr. John H. Lindstrom
Dorsey, Windhorst, Hannaford,
Whitney & Halladay
2300 First National.Bank Building
Minneapolis, Minnesota 55402
RE: Hanson vs. Evanson vs. City of Edina
Dear Mr. Lindstrom;
Enclosed please find the original Easement for Public Road Purposes
regarding the Evanson's, Hanson's, and the City of Edina.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Curtis E. Austin
CEA:ss
Enclosure
April, 101 1980 ,
Curtis E: Austin, Esq.
Northwestern.Financial Center
Suite 730
.7900,Xerxes avenue South
Minneapolis, Minnesota 55431
Re.: Hanson-v. Evanson v. City of Edina
Dear Mr. Austin
My apologies for not thanking you for the tremendous
/lunch. - It turns out that -I, should have had more than one glass
of.wine -= the remainder of,that day was'not ne$rly so pleasant,
It is our practice to file the original easement. Please
send the original at your convenience. Also, could you please -
have typed across the top of the document "This Instrument -Is
Considered.Exempt For Tax Purposes." ,
Sincerely,
John H. Lindstrom
JHL:sp
cc: Trygve A. Egre ,
6712 -dVW -Alff
APR 0 9 1980
April 7, 1980
Mr. John H. Lindstrom
Dorsey, Windhorst, Hannaford,
Whitney & Halladay
2300 First National Bank Building
Minneapolis, Minnesota 55402
Dear Mr. Lindstrom:
Enclosed please find a photocopy of the Easement running in favor
of the City of Edina. Do you wish us to file the original, or is
this a document you would prefer to file on behalf of the City
or have forwarded to the City for filing.
Would you please let me know.
Sincerely,
Curtis E. Austin
CEA:ss
Enclosure gu.e
T, ms
I
MEMORANDUM OF TELEPHONE CONVERSATION
JOHN H. LINDSTROM
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
y
RE:
kt o
Date: 3 /
TO:
Fr T. S. Erickson (2659))
Re: VC-la—
aCM4�
r
MEMORANDUM
TO: Thomas Erickson
FROM: John Lindstrom
DATE: March 17, 1980
RE: City of Edina (Lowe) and (Marth Road)
I thought perhaps a summary of the events that have
occurred to date in the two Edina matters referenced above
would be useful.
The Lowe case is, for all practical purposes, closed.
Mr. Lowe's attorney has accepted Edina's version of the Stipulation,
and he is now in the process of filing the Stipulation with the
Court. I will forward a certificate of filing when it is
available.
Unfortunately, the Marth Road matter is not progressing
as smoothly. As you are aware, a problem arose last week
concerning the trial schedule. Mr. Hanson's attorney is required
by the Rules for the Fourth Judicial District to serve a Note
of Issue upon us simultaneously with his filing the Note in
court. He failed to do so. As a result, I had no notice that
trial was scheduled for the loth of March. One telephone call
to the Clerk remedied the problem. The case has been stricken
from the trial calendar.
The parties have reached an impassein the settlement
negotiations. Evanson (the owner of the servient tenement) is
willing to give an easement in perpetuity to both Hanson and
the City of Edina, but the width of that easement (approximately
twenty-six feet) is insufficient to permit assured approval of
Hanson's subdivision plans. And the width of this proposed
easement does not particularly benefit the City of Edina. Because
Marth Road is some forty-eight feet wide, the easement must be at
least thirty-three feet to allow continuity between the two roads.
In addition, the proposed easement does not include the most
westerly ten. feet of property. Mr. Hughes has informed me that
the City desires at least five of those feet in order to make
Marth Road and the proposed easement.mesh more completely.
Another problem arises in negotiating with Evanson's
lawyer. Unless the City can persuade Evanson to grant a thirty-
three foot wide easement, the City probably will not be able to
secure that thirty-three foot easement by dedication. As you know,
dedication only results in ownership of that portion of the private
roadway actually maintained, plus enough land for adjacent support.
Unfortunately, this may be less than thirty-three feet in this
instance. Therefore, I am trying to placate Evanson's attorney,
hoping that he will convince his client to grant an easement of
at least thirty-three feet. Actually, if Evanson cannot be convinced
to grant such an easement, it may not be worth the City's money to
litigate the matter, since the City could not secure a wider ease-
ment than Evanson is now willing to grant.
I have suggested that all parties meet at the Dorsey
firm sometime in the next few weeks in an attempt to hammer
out an easement acceptable to'all concerned. I will apprise
you of these developments as they occur.
sp
-2-
Marc... 21, 1980
Gordon L.. Hughes
Director of,planning plin
} ram. -
�801 Host
h ai"a, Ni11?"ic:rjota 55424
1
/ es Wnso% 'T. Evanson V. . Cit of Edina �
D it ;r . Hughes
La'kcIased For your y rovai_ please fire Qe Easement
i ;_ you wave any questions, ns , ri7-C':i` f do I 0t :1esi l a-te
John ' i.:iI'C,vtroT^
,.7i.r
Lnclosure
f
STATE OF MINNESOTA
DISTRICT COURT OF MINNESOTA
FOURTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT
JACK M. PROVO
DISTRICT COURT ADMINISTRATOR
12TH FLOOR COURTS TOWER
HENNEPIN COUNTY GOVERNMENT CENTER
MINNEAPOLIS, MINNESOTA 55487
March 11, 1980
Mr. John H. Lindstrom
Attorney at Law
2300 First National Bank Building
Minneapolis, MN 55402
RE: Warren and Sarah Hanson vs. Roger
and Marilyn Evanson
Case No. 756794
Dear Mr. Lindstrom:
I received your letter of March 4, 1980, concerning the above -mentioned
case. Be advised that the case has been stricken from the trial calendar.
Sincerely,
6 """j
Roy H. Halldeen
Court Division Supervisor
RHH/kla
cc: Curtis E. Austin
Trygve A. Egge
NOTES OF TELEPHONE CALL
to
4;:D, 9
Others.
Date S Time /0,JVf7,-- Phone
Re:
oko
M-Iy20
MEMORANDUM OF TELEPHONE CONVERSATION
JOHN H. LINDSTROM
T0:
01�u Xfi H
FROM: 3 /
DATE:
RE: /�✓��
�6o.CS /�A6C -gig. � f �J%lGf abes c4V OZ 70' ;Zwool
r
? 7
C
MEMORANDUM OF TELEPHONE CONVERSATION
JOHN H. LINDSTROM
m
FROM:
DATE:
March 4, 1980
Mr. ?Roy Iialldeen,
c/o Assignment Office
Hennepin County Government Center
krinneapolis, Minnesota 55487
Re:t Hanson.v.-Evanson V. City•of.Edina
Court File No. 756794
Dear Mr.' He&ldeen:
Fursduat to our conversation of .Msnch 3, 1930, I
have contacted all parties -involved and with their-mestival
consent, we are requesting -an indefinite continuance of
the abeouecaptioned case.
If you have any questions, -please do not hesitate
to) call me.
Very truly yours.,
John 11. Lindstrom
JHL'• sp
-
TRYGVE A. EGGS
ATTORNEY AT LAW
March 3, 1980
Mr. Curtis E. Austin
Northwestern Financial Center
7900 Xerxes Avenue South
Suite 730
Minneapolis, Minnesota 55431
Re: Hanson v. Evanson
My File 2201
Dear Mr. Austin:
MERRILL HOUSE
2116 2nd Avenue South
Mpls., MN 55404
(612) 871.6470
%041ills
This letter will confirm our telephone conversation of today,
wherein you stated that you would be sending a draft in the
amount of $3,000. Enclosed please find two original easements
which we also talked about today.
It was also agreed that I would not cash the draft and you
will not file the easements until your question about the
acceptability of the easement by the City of Edina is
resolved.
I spoke to Mr. Lindstrom, attorney for the City of Edina, he
said he will be speaking with you and the city planner. .
Neither of us'expect that the dimensions of the easement will
be unacceptable to the City of Edina.
Sincerely,
let_
Trygve A. Egge
Attorney at Law
TAE/cp
Enclosures
cc: Mr. & Mrs. Evanson
-,/Mr. Lindstrom
MEMORANDUM OF TELEPHONE CONVERSATION
JOHN H. LINDSTROM
FROM:
DATE:
RE:
MEMORANDUM OF TELEPHONE CONVERSATION
JOHN H. LINDSTROM
TO: ; 4r yj-C
FROM:
DATE: p*4--G li
RE:
•Ilk d"A
-
_. IbI ,
MRMnRANT)TTM
TO: THOMAS S. ERICKSON
FROM: deEtt Allen
You asked me to check to see who owns the 33' strip of land on
the attached map, whether there has ever been an easement for roadway
purposes over that piece, and who owns the property to the South of this
33' strip.
1. It appears from the tract index that the 33' strip of land
remains in the name of Arnold F. Heger. He at one time owned most of the
property in this area and somehow this particular strip of land was never
conveyed. The tax records indicated a Gordon L. Schuster was the owner
and taxpayer. They double checked the tract index and came up with Arnold
Heger as the owner also, unless there is an outstanding deed.
2. There were no easements over the 33' strip of land in any
of the transfer documents, or as separate instruments.
3. The property just to the South, described as the South 148.6
feet of the North 981.6 feet of the West 224 feet of the Southeast 1/4
of the Southwest 1/4, Section 8, Township 116, Range 21, is owned by
Thomas J. Weiseth and his wife by Warranty Deed filed 9-28-72 as Document
t No. 3973733 in the office of the Register of Deeds.
10-6-75
Sr' _
N � •�. i � F � iD
F
S r
6O -Y _ C• �-• s
L -
_
s
{
6-
Z
.;
7—c
r"
Wj
it
13z-
0
� v
Z65192
1
sue,
�. z3t• 9
\
1.4554
1 .. • `
e\
AiJvn
-. tyy -t. •- .�"`i
10
�d De
5
612-"05--Am
January 24, 1980
Mr. John H. Lindstrom
Dorsey, Windhorst, Hannaford,
Whitney & Halladay
2300 First National Bank Building
Minneapolis, Minnesota 55402
RE: Hanson vs. Evanson vs. City of Edina
Dear Mr. Lindstrom:
Enclosed please find a letter I received from Trygve Egge in
regard to the possible settlement of the pending litigation.
You will note he is proposing a perpetual easement for roadway
purposes for the benefit of the Hanson's property. In my last
conversation with you, I had gained the impression that the
City of Edina would require an easement running in favor of the
City of Edina before they would allow a plat of the Hanson's
property.
Could you please clarify this matter for me so that Mr. Egge and
I can bring the matter to a successful conclusion..
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Curtis E. Austin
CEA:ss
Enclosure
TRYGVE A. EGGE
ATTORNEY AT LAW
January 18, 1980
Mr. Curtis Austin
Northwestern Financial Center
Suite 730
7900 Xerxes Avenue South
Minneapolis, Minnesota 55431
Re: Evanson v. Hanson
My File: 2201
Dear Mr. Austin:
MERRILL HOUSE
2116 2nd Avenue South
Mpls., MN 55404
(612) 871-6470
I have discussed your settlement of December 18, 1979 with
my clients.
As expressed to you earlier, my clients have not wanted to
cause trouble with the Hansons only to receive fair treat-
ment. My clients were impressed with your comments concerning
the limited income of your clients.
Therefore, please be advised that my clients accept your
settlement offer in the sum of $3,000.
Enclosed is a Stipulation of Dismissal which I ask you to
sign and return to this office, together with your draft of
$3,000.
I will prepare a perpetual easement for roadway purposes over
the Evanson driveway to the benefit of the Hanson property.
I will have the Evansons execute the easement upon receipt of
the settlement draft and forward it to your office for filing.
I have discussed this matter with the attorney for the city
of Edina. They are not interested in pursuing a claim of
public dedication if the matter is settled between the Hansons
and the Evansons. They would not raise the issue again
separately if we settle our case. Therefore, we can go ahead
and conclude this matter at this time.
If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me.
Sinceree,,ly;
Trygve�A. Egge
TAE/cp
Enclosure
cc: Mr. & Mrs. Evanson
C
COP
DORSEY, WINDHORST, HANNAFORD, WHITNEY & HI LLADAY
2300 FIRST NATIONAL BANK BUILDING
MINNEAPOLIS,MINNESOTA 55402
880 W-FIRST NATIONAL BANK BUILDING (612) 340-2600 115 THIRD STREET SOUTHWEST
ST. PAUL,MINNESOTA 55101 CABLE: DOROW ROCHESTER. MINNESOTA 55901
(612) 227-8017 (507) 288-3156
TELEX: 29-0605
TELECOPIER: (612) 340-2868
January 28, 1980 JOHN H. LINDSTROM
(612) 340-2989
Mr. Curtis E. Austin
Northwestern Financial Center
Suite 730
7900 Xerxes Avenue South
Minneapolis, Minnesota 55431
Dear Mr. Austin:
Your letter of January 24 is correct in that the
Municipal Ordinances in effect in the City of Edina would
require that the right-of-way in question become a public,
not a private, easement in order for the Hanson subdivision
proposal to have any chance of success. If the easement .
runs only in favor -of the dominant tenement, Mr. Hanson must
seek a variance from the City Council in order for his
proposed subdivision to be granted. A variance for this
reason is rarely granted.
Sincerely,
John H. Lindstrom
JHL:sp
cc: Tom Erickson
cc: Trygve A. Egge
cc: Ken Rosland
MEMORANDUM
TO: ; Thomas Erickson '
FROM: John Lindstrom �.
DATE: January:22', 1980
RE: Marth Road Matter -- City of Edina Audit -
The City of Edina has been named a third party
defendant.in a case captioned Hanson v. Evans.on�and,the
City of Edina. Briefly,- the•caseIconcerns the.following:
Hanson owns a Parcel.of real estate that is adjacent
to a parcel of real.estate owned -by Evanson. Although Hanson's
real estate is indirectly serviced by an existing road,
Hanson has used a private right of way�to reach his land that
traverses Evanson's property:
Hanson desires that he be permitted to subdivide his
parcel of realeestate. In order for such permission to'be
granted; Hanson would-probably.be required to obtain a perpetual
public easement on what -now is the private right -of way across
Evanson's land. In an'effort to block Hanson's efforts toward
subdividing Hanson's property, Evanson threatened to deny
Hanson further use of the right of ,,way: As a ' result, , Hanson
brought suit against Evanson, alleging, among other things,
that the private right of way had been'used,'by the general public
and had been maintained by.the City of.Edina.• These two actions,
-in Hanson's opinion, result in an -implied -dedication of the
right of way to .the. public pursuantto Minnesota. lair,
Threatened with the possibilities of present or
future dedication, Evanson then`impled the City'of Edina in
an attempt to' .resolve.the legal status of,the right of way in
one action.;,
The City of Edina'now claims that the right of way
has been impliedly dedicated to'the'City. However, the City
faces no liability of any kind arising out of;bfte current
action. Indeed,,if the suit is successful; the City will
realize a substantial.'benefit. And a.possibility exists that
the suit will be settled without any participation by, the City
of Edina. -
J.L.
sp
MEMORANDUM OF TELEPHONE CONVERSATION
JOHN LINDSTROM
TO/FROM:
NUMBER: f 3 S' _ 714
RE: �/Q%� dal-
DATE :
TIME: ,/ Y04, /'h ,
MEMORANDUM OF TELEPHONE CONVERSATION
JOHN LINDSTROM
TO/FROM: fj l",-,I
NUMBER:
RE: �I1 I� 41ia n n
DATE:
TIME:
),I- fo 0. b �o
MEMORANDUM OF TELEPHONE CONVERSATION
JOHN LINDSTROM
TO/FROM:
NUMBER: / I
RE:
DATE:
TIME:
MEMORANDUM.OF TELEPHONE CONVERSATION
JOHN LINDSTROM
MEMORANDUM OF TELEPHONE CONVERSATION
JOHN LINDSTROM
MEMORANDUM OF TELEPHONE CONVERSATION
JOHN LINDSTROM
TO/FROM:
NUMBER:
ryyl-
op ?/- 4 v ?40
RE: ml?fm/ /ww
DATE:/A. /40
TIME: ,pt:11,1'
MEMORANDUM OF TELEPHONE CONVERSATION
JOHN LINDSTROM
TO/FROM:) 5�
NUMBER:
RE: A/� �R
DATE:
TIME: �.
MEMORANDUM OF TELEPHONE CONVERSATION
JOHN LINDSTROM
TO/FROM: �iiGl7fi+,
NUMBER:
RE:
DATE:
% o
TIME:
all Ile IJ'f
:9zll
oe X401C
�D��y SArT
a 8'Yuj d �66
��` -� -� ,
D""?RICT COURT ADMINISTRATION PHONE 348-3164
Ja Provo
Adn strator
November 29, 1979
John Lindstrom
Attorney at Law
2300 First National Bank Building
Minneapolis, Minnesota 55402
Dear Sir:
12th Floor, Court Tower
Government Center
Minneapolis, Mn. 55487
Re: Warren -Hon, et al vs. Roger E. Everson
Court File No. 756794
We are returning your papers for the following reason:
A fee of $ is required,
XX Overpayment of $ 19.00 enclosed.
Personal out-of-state checks not accepted, please send Cashier's
check or Money Order in U. S. currency.
Must file combined Note of Issue/Readiness for Trial.
Statement of case must be filed at time of filing Note of Issue/
Readiness for Trial.
Papers should be filed in
Affidavit of Identification required.
We are unable to find any record of this case.
A Proposed Order and Memorandum must accompany a Notice of Motion
and Motion upon filing. (See Rule 4d, Fourth Judicial District)
An Affidavit and Demand for Change of Venue has been filed. If
opposed to the Change of Venue, respond in writing to District
Court within eight days pursuant to Supreme Court Ruling June 13,
1975 on Standslast vs. Reid. Please respond to:
XX Other: No fee is require for Municipalities. i.e. City of Edina
HC 2830 �Dll A
Deput
MEMORANDUM OF TELEPHONE CONVERSATION
JOHN LINDSTROM
TO/FROM:
NUMBER:pZ
DATE:
TIME:
. �o� wad. � � �;��'� ����• °�G`
�. ems ` a`
z
�a�
MEMORANDUM OF TELEPHONE CONVERSATION
JOHN LINDSTROM
TO/FROM:
;r
tIe
NUMBER:
RE: o �di�c ma •
(/�
DATE:
TIME: 7 • C� . �. ��/,
�dZGs�l!/IG� IDOo „
MEMO]
TO: Thomas Erickson
FROM: John H. Lindstrom
DATE: November 28, 1979
RE: City of Edina re:
Mr. Egge, Evanson's attorney, indicated that his
client might be willing to settle for $7,000.00. I sounded -
out Mr. Austin's opinion of that figure, asking if his clients,
the Hansons, would be willing to pay Mr. Evanson, since the
road would substantially benefit the Hansons. Mr. Austin
said that his clients were on a fixed income, and that they
very well might be amenable to such a solution but for the fact
that they simply could not come up with $7,000.00. I asked
Austin if his clients would be willing to mortgage the proposed
subdivision land or otherwise give security to the City of
�} Edina if the City were to front the Hanson's the $7,000.00
(or whatever lesser figure could be negotiated) needed to buy
off Evanson's claim. He replied that he would contact the
Hansons for their answer.
r� I telephoned Mr. Hoffman and explained the negotiations
with Egge and Austin. I also explained that if we proceeded
in this manner, the City of Edina would lose virtually nothing
except, perhaps, interest on the money fronted to the Hansons,
since the Hansons are virtually assured of realizing a
substantial amount of money after subdivision is completed.
I further explained that the trial costs could easily run in
excess of $3,000.00 with no absolute guarantee of success,
although the City's chances of success do appear very good.
Hoffman said that the idea appears superficially sound, as
long as the Hansons do not expect a guarantee of approval for
the subdivision but that he would likY to talk with others -in
Edina's administration before giving me a definite answer as
to the City's position.
sp
November 23, 1979
Mr. Fran Hoffman
City Hall - Edina
.4301 W. 50th Street
Edina, Minnasota 55424
Dear Mr. Hoffman:
Enclosed is'a copy of the answer we filed on
behalf of the City of Edina in the Marth Road matter.
Please call.me if you have any 4uestions.
Very truly yours,
John H. Lindstrom
JHL : s2
Enclosure
November
28, 1979
'Trygve A I
' Egge, Esq.
2116 .Second Avenue South
Minneapolis,
Minnesota 55404
Re: Hanson v. Evanson
v./City
of Dina
Dear Pir.
Egge i
Enclosed'and served
upon you b
^ail please find
the City
of Edina's Angwer to
Third Party
Complaint.
sincerely,,.
r
John'H.
Lindstrom
JIiL: sp
Enclosure
i
MEMORANDUM OF TELEPHONE CONVERSATION
JOHN LINDSTROM
TO/FROM:
NUMBER:
/%� •
RE: 1"t%(
DATE: II ( ZG
i
/
Nil M
•rr
MEMORANDUM OF TELEPHONE CONVERSATION
TO/FROM: Ii G�yt
NUMBER:
RE:
DATE:
JOHN LINDSTROM
TIME : O,, S, oT ! / �G �!. n' r r
,wee�-Ac
AA
Ara er
ecG"l
A c f �v�r-�a L� s �o� �✓re S-v r�+..,
64 u� WX
J
i
November 1., 1979
Mr. Francis Hoffman
Director, Public Works and
Engineering
City of Edina
4801 West-50th-Street
Edina, Minnesota' 55424
RE: Furth Road
Dear Frans
I enclose herewith a Third Party,Summons and Com-
plaint. I°accepted service of this Summons and Complaint on
November 1, 1979. -ire have until.November 21, 1979, to respond,
if we wish to respond. will you please advise as to whether
or not you wish to respond.
Very.truly.yours,
Thomas S. Erickson.
TSE/bjd
- Enclosure
cc._ Mr. Kenneth E. Rosland
Mr. Gordon Hughes
TRYGVE A. EGGE
ATTORNEY AT LAW
October 31, 1979
Mr. Thomas S. Erickson
Dorsey Law Firm
2300 1st National Bank Building
Minneapolis, Minnesota 55402
Re: Evanson v. Hanson
My File: 2201
Dear Mr. Erickson:
RECEIVED
N QV 011979
MERRILL HOUSE
2116 2nd Avenue South
Mpls., MN 55404
(612) 871-6470
Enclosed please find the original and one copy of an Admission
of Service. Also enclosed is a copy of a Third Party Summons
and Complaint with Exhibit.
Please sign the original Admission of Service on behalf of your
client, and return it to this office, if this is not acceptable,
please advise.
Since -e1y,
7�j�� t e A. E��'ee-
Try
Attorney at Law
TAE/cp
Enclosures
cc: Mr. & Mrs. Evanson
NOTES OF TELEPHONE CALL
to
Others
i
n
TRYGVE A. EGGE
ATTORNEY AT LAW
MERRILL HOUSE
2116 2nd Avenue. South
R E C E! V t:, U Mpls., MN 55404
® C T 02 1979 (612) 871-6470
October 1, 1979
Mr. Thomas S. Erickson
Dorsey Law Firm
2300 1st National Bank Building
Minneapolis, Minnesota 55402
Re: Evanson v. Hanson
My File: 2201
Dear Mr. Erickson:
I would like to know your position on the above entitled
matter. I hope to hear from you soon.
Sincerely,
41�iy,,'�
TrygvzeA. Eggs
Attorney at Law
TAE/cp
cc: Roger Evanson
RECEIVED
TRYGVE A. EGGE
ATTORNEY AT LAW
September 17, 1979
Thomas S. Erickson
Dorsey Law Firm
2300 1st National Bank Bldg.
Minneapolis, MN. 55402
Re: Evanson vs Hanson
My File: 2201
Dear Mr. Erickson:
SEP 18 1979
MERRILL HOUSE
2116 2nd Avenue South
Mpls., MN 55404
(612) 871-6470
Hopefully, you have had an opportunity to review the letter
forwarded to you by Mr. Huges. Please let me hear from you
soon on this matter.
Sincerel
T g e A. eggW�C
Attorney at Law
TAE/mh
cc/ Evanson
-v OF
INNA
4801 WEST 50TH STREET, EDINA, MINNESOTA 55424
612-927-8861 August 30, 1979
Mr. Trygve A. Egge
Merrill House
2116 - 2nd Avenue South
Minneapolis, MN 55404
Dear Mr. Egge:
I have received your letter of August 22 1979, concerning the Hanson/
Evanson matter. I have forwarded a copy of your letter to Thomas S.
Erickson, our attorney. In that Mr. Erickson is presently on vacation,
we will not be able to respond for two to three weeks.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
4rdL. Hughes
Director of Planning
GLH: jkt
TRYGVE A. EGGE
ATTORNEY AT LAW
MERRILL HOUSE
2116 2nd Avenue South
Mpls., MN 55404
(612) 871.6470
August 22, 1979
Gorden Hughes,
Director of Planning
Edina Planning Dept.
4801 West 50th St.
Edina, MN. 55424
Dear Mr. Hughes:
As you may be aware, a suit was commenced by Mr. and Mrs.
Warren:Hanson against Mr. and Mrs. Roger Evanson.. Mr. and Mrs.
Evanson have initiated.a counter -claim for a Quiet Title Action
in order to settle, once and for all, the right-of-way dispute
they have with the Hansons. Since the nature of a Quiet Title
Action is to lay torest all adverse claims against the property,
I must ask you.to consider those interests or claims of right the
City of Edina may have against the Evanson property.
Mr. Austin, the Hanson's attorney, has raised the question as
to.whether an implied dedication (M.S.A. 160.05) applies to this
situation. The statute makes reference to maintenance of a
private road as a public highway. Our investigation has revealed
that:
1. Three years ago the. Evanson driveway was superficially
blacktopped for.the sole purpose of preventing erosion
of gravel upon 78th Street, due to complaints by the
`state highway department to the City of Edina.
2. Prior to blacktopping, thedriveway, was graded only.
after heavy rains to return the gravel to the driveway.
3. The snowplowing of the Evanson driveway was done -strictly
for the convenience of the plow operator; never under
instruction of the City of Edina staff and never at the
request of the landowner.
4. The City Public .Works Department has not kept any
written records of street maintenance activity.
It is clear from the facts that statutory dedication does not
apply. Nonetheless,.it may be appropriatefor the City to become
involved in the suit so the technical and procedural requirements
of a Quiet Title Action are met. This can be accomplished by
either of two methods.. First, the city can intervene in the
present action or second,,the Evansons can make the City of Edina
a party by the process known as third -party complaint. The city"s
involvement could simply be to become an inactive.party, entering
an answer disclaiming any interest. Such a response would be
consistent with your position that this is a matter strictly
between the Hansons and Evansons. Your files indicate this
position as long ago as 1975 when Lon Lofthus of the City
Engineering Department attempted to get the Hansons and Lords to
enter into a private easement agreement, and more recently by
your correspondence to Mr. Austin dated Nov. 8, 1978 wherein
you stated that it was the Hansons',obligation,to secure their
own right of way across the Evanson property.
Please refer these matters to your city attorney and
if either of the above methods would be appropriate
perspective of the City of Edina. -in facilitating the
of all claims in the Evanson property by meeting the
of including any party.with an interest in an action
title.
Please let me hear from you as soon as possible.
Sincerel ,
T �iA.S SelYg g
Attorney at Law
TAE/mh
cc/ client
advise me
from the
resolution
requirements
to quiet
o 111111:�''
DORSEY, MARQUART, WINDHORST, WEST & HALLADAY
NEW FILE REQUISITION
Client City of Edina Client 094802
Name Number:
Address 4801 West 50th Street, Edina 55424 Phone No. 927-8861
Reference Re: Marth Road — Hansen & Evanson Lawsuit
Will time be charged to this Re: 17Yes EJ No
If No --provide below the name and number of the Re: to which time will be charged.
Re
File: Large —
®
Medium —
Small —
Is this a referral?
Yes No XX
If a referral, by whom referred?
Name on File: In charge John Lindstrom
Billing Attorney Name rs S. Erickson
Have you checked for conflict of interest? _
Do we have a related client? No
Description of work to be performed
FEE ARRANGEMENT
Yes
1. In discussing arrangements, did you discuss
fee with the client? Yes No XX
2. Is client able to pay fee? Yes XX No
If answer is no, the matter must be reviewed by
the Administrative Partner before the file may
be opened.
3. Basis for fee - -
Time xx
Contingency (give details)
Other (specify)
Other Instructions:
Date November 21 , 19 79
O
Re: Number OO oZ17 0
Re: Number
Correspondence Spindle Legal Spindle n
hers 'I'hC mas S . Erickson
Billing Attorney 0276
Number
BILLING ARRANGEMENT
1. Client is to be b' I led
�,,_ Monthly
Bi Monthly
Quarterly
JW End of Matter
2. Is there any reason why disbursements should not be
automatically billed to the client by Bookkeeping?
Yes No XX
If yes, state reason
1
Signature
Billing Attorney
A -a Approving Partner
LITIGATION DEPARTMENT
NEW WORK SCREENING REQUEST
(SEND TO R. BUCKVOLD)
1. Attorney Originating Request: g 1�11i�d�+ ® OA
(No litigation matter can be accepted until
approved by the Litigation Screening Partner)
2. Client: (If existing client, fill in name only)
Name City of Edina
Address
Affiliates, subsidiaries, connected business entities or persons
3. Adverse Party or Parties and Their Attorneys, If Known:
Warren E. & Sarah Hanson.and Roger C. & Marilyn E. Evanson
4. Nature of Claim and Approximate Amount Involved:
5. Has Contingent Fee Been Proposed?
6. To Originating Attorney:
a. Have you checked thoroughly for conflicts by calling the Vault-2852? x
b. If found, have conflicts been resolved? Yes x No Not Applicable
c. Can we get paid in full and in a timely fashion?
d. Retainer requested or obtained? If so, how much?
e. Name of billing attorney Tom Erickson
f. Others on the file " - %.' - �, ciT
7. To Litigation Screening Partner:
a. Is a litigator available? If so, who? twI
b. Have we checked thoroughly for conflicts and resolved them if found?
c. If existing client, is client in good standing with us? 4E
Approved C.-�Rejected
Assigned to:
Date
By
Litigation Screening Partner
CONTINGENT FEE CASE
Approved:
Partner
Partner - Member o
F1 T11t�r'i' ('nmr.�i t+-nr
Our File No. 094802 — 00270
Court File No.
Reg. No. 1
756794
Calendar No.
PLEADINGS REGISTER FOR
Warren E. & Sarah Hanson v. V.
Roger C. Evanson & Marilyn E. Evanson
CITY OF EDINA
Pleading
No.
Description
Personal Service
Service by
Mail
Court File
Date
Sent Rec'd.
Sent Rec'd.
Mess. Mailed
1
Notice of Motion & Motion
10-18
79
2
Certificate of Non -
Readiness
10-22
79
3
Proposed Order and
Memorandum
10-22
79
4
Third Party Summons and
Complaint
11-1
79
5
Admission of Service
11-1
79
6
Answer to Third
Party Complaint
11-28-
79
11-28-
79
STATE OF MINNESOTA
COUNTY OF HENNEPIN
Warren E. Hanson and
Sarah Hanson,
Plaintiffs,
VS.
Roger C. Evanson and
Marilyn E. Evanson,
Defendants,
VS.
City of Edina,
Third Party Defendant.
r'1
1
DISTRICT COURT % Y
FOURTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT
ANSWER TO THIRD
PARTY COMPLAINT
The City of Edina, third party defendant in the
above -captioned matter, for its Answer to the Third Party
Complaint herein, admits, denies and alleges as follows:
FIRST DEFENSE
1. Alleges that it is without knowledge or information
sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of each and every
allegation set forth in III of the Complaint.
2. Admits that the property described as "The
South 148.E feet of the North 981.6 feet of the West 224 feet
of the Southwest 1/4 of the Southwest 1/4 of Section 8, Township
116, Range 21" is situated in Hennepin County, Minnesota; admits
that said property is adjacent to the south side of the property
described as "The South 100 feet of the North 833 feet of the
',Vest 448 feet of the Southeast 1/4 of the Southwest 1/4, Section
8, Township 116, Range 21, West of the 5th Principal Meridian,
except the West 33 feet thereof"; alleges that it is without
knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to each
and every other allegation set forth in 11 II of.the Complaint.
3. Admits that the plaintiffs had a right of way
from their property over defendants' property to Marth Road;
alleges that it is without knowledge or information sufficient
to form a,belief as to the truth of each and every other
allegation set forth in 1► III of the Complaint.
4. Admits that the City of Edina has as an interest
in the above -referenced right of way under Minnesota Statute
§ 160.05.
5. Denies each and every allegation set forth in
1► V of the Complaint.
6. Denies each and every allegation set forth in
1► VI of the Complaint.
SECOND DEFENSE
1.. Alleges that the claims of the third party TT
set forth in the Complaint are barred by the doctrines of
waiver and estoppel.
THIRD DEFENSE
1. Alleges that the claims of the third party 1T
set forth in the Complaint are barred by the doctrine of
laches.
WHEREFORE, Third Party Defendant prays:
1. That the property in dispute be adjudged dedicated
pursuant to the provisions of Minnesota Statute § 160.05(1),
and that the property in dispute be declared a public highway.
2. That both the plaintiffs and the defendants, and
any other persons or entities, be enjoined from asserting any
claims adverse to the public's title to the property in dispute.
3. That both the plaintiffs and the defendants, and
any other persons or entities, be declared to have no estate,
right, title, lien or other interest in or to the property in
dispute.
-2-
4. That the City of Edina be awarded its costs
and attorney's fees.
5. That this Court grant such other relief as it
deems equitable.'
Dated: November 23, 1979
DORSEY, WINDHORST, HANNAFORD,
WHITNEY & HA,LLAADAY
L-0
XJohn H. Lindstrom
00 First National Bank Bldg.
Minneapolis, Minnesota 55402
Telephone: 612-340-2989
Attorneys for Third Party
Defendant City of Edina
AFFIDAVIT OF MAILING
STATE OF MINNESOTA)
ss.
COUNTY OF HENNEPIN)
SUE PRAZAK, being first duly sworn, on oath deposes and
states that on the 28th day of November 1979 , she
did deposit in the United States mails an envelope properly sealed
and with postage prepaid thereon, addressed to
Trygve A. Egge, Esq.
2116 Second Avenue South
Minneapolis, Minnesota .55404
the last known address of said addressee, in which envelope she
had first placed a true and correct copy of.the attached
Answer to Third Party Complaint.
Subscribed and sworn to before me
this day of 19 77--------------------------
KAYE M. MATOUSEK
OTARY PUBLIC - MINNESOTA
HENNEPIN COUNTY
Commission Expires Nov. 11. 1983
ltrn�sfdON�OiMsr -
STATE OF MINNESOTA
COUNTY OF HENNEPIN
Warren E. Hanson and
Sarah Hanson,
Plaintiffs,
VS.
Roger C. Evanson and
Marilyn E. Evanson,
Defendants,
and
Roger C. Evanson and
Marilyn E. Evanson,
Third Party Plaintiffs,
VS.
City of Edina
Third Party Defendant.
DISTRICT COURT
FOURTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT
ADMISSION OF SERVICE
Due and proper service of a true, accurate and complete copy
of the attached Third -Party Summons and Complaint in the matter of
Roger C. Evanson and Marilyn E.-Evanson versus the City of/Eddiina
is hereby admitted on its behalf by the undersigned this a�;Z
day of .1979.
i
Thomas S. Erickson
Attorney for City of Edina
Dorsey Law Firm
2300 1st National Bank Building
Minneapolis, Minnesota 55402
(612) 340-2600
STATE OF MI14NESOTA
COUNTY OF HENNEPIN
Warren E. Hanson and
Sarah Hanson,
Plaintiffs,
VS.
Roger C. Evanson and
Marilyn E. Evanson,
Defendants,
VS.
City of Edina,
Third Party Defendant,
DISTRICT COURT
FOURTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT
THIRD PARTY SUMMONS
You are hereby summoned and required to serve upon Curtis
E. Austin, plaintiffs attorney, whose address is 730 N.F'.C.,
7900 Xerxes Avenue South, Bloomington, Minnesota 55431, and
upon Trygve A. Egge, who is attorney for the defendants and
third party plaintiff, and whose address is 2116 2nd Avenue
South, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55404, an Answer to the Third
Party Complaint, which is herewith served upon you, within
twenty (20) days after the service of this Summons upon you
exclusive of the day of service. If you fail to do so,
judgment by default will be taken against you for the relief
demanded in the Third Party Complaint.
There is also served upon you herewith, a copy of the
Complaint of plaintiff, which you may answer.
Trygve -,A-. Egge
Attorney for Defendant and
Third Party Plaintiff
2116 2nd Avenue South
Minneapolis, Minnesota 55404
Telephone: (612) 871-6470
Dated: October 31, 1979
STATE OF MIN14ESOTA
COUNTY OF HENNEPIN
Warren E. Hanson and
Sarah Hanson,
Plaintiffs,
VS.
Roger C. Evanson and
Marilyn E. Evanson,
Defendants,
VS.
City of Edina,
Third Party Defendant,
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
DISTRICT COURT
FOURTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT
THIRD PARTY COMPLAINT
Roger C. Evanson and Marilyn E. Evanson, defendants and
Third Party Plaintiffs in the above matter, for their Third
Party Complaint against Third Party Defendants, state and allege:
I.
That Plaintiffs, Warren E. and Sarah Hanson, have served
upon Roger C. and Marilyn E. Evanson, a Complaint, a copy of
which is hereto attached as Exhibit A.
II.
That at all times mentioned in Plaintiffs' Complaint,
Defendants owned and still own that certain real property
situated in the County of Hennepin, State of Minnesota, and
described as follows:
The South 148.6 feet of the North 981.6 feet of the
West 224 feet of the Southeast 1/4 of the Southwest
1/4 of Section 8, Township 116, Range 21.
Said property is adjacent to and abutts.the south side of
the Plaintiffs' property described in his Complaint.
III.
That since completion of Shaugnessy Road up to the
Plaintiffs' property, Plaintiffs had a right of way from their
said property over Defendants' adjoining property to Marth Road
r
to pass and re -pass freely at all times on foot or with vehicle.
The portion of Defendants' property subject to said right of
way is described as follows:
The South 148.6 feet of. the North 981.6 feet of the
West 48 of the Southeast 1/4 of the Southwest 1/4 of
Section 8, Township 116, Range 21 West.
IV.
That Third Party Defendant, the City of Edina, has a
potential interest in the above described right of way under
MSA 160.05.
V.
That Third Party Defendants', potential claim is without
any right whatever, and Third .Party Defendant has no right,
title, lien or interest in or to the property described above.
IV.
That Third Party Defendants potential claim or interest
in said property constitutes a cloud on Defendants and, Third
Party Plaintiffs' title to said property.
WHEREFORE, Defendant and Third Party Plaintiff, prays:
1. That Third Party Defendants and all persons or
entities claiming under them,.be required to set forth the
nature of their claims to said real property;
2. That all adverse claims to said real property be
determined by a decree of this court. . -
3. That said decree declare and adjudge that Defendant
and Third Party Plaintiff owns in fee simple, and is entitled
to the quiet and peaceful possession of, said real property;
and that Third Party Defendants and all persons or entities
claiming under them, have no estate, right, title, lien, or inter-
est in or to said real property or any part thereof;
4. That said decree permanently enjoin Third Party
Defendants and all persons or entities claiming under them,
from asserting any adverse claim to defendant -third party
plaintiffs' title to said.property.
5. For costs of this action; and
6. For such other and further relief as the court deems
just and proper.
Try§ve/A. Egge G
Attorney for Defendants and
Third Party Plaintiffs
2116 2nd Avenue South
Minneapolis, Minnesota 55404
Telephone: (612) 871-6470
Dated: October 31, 1979
4.
STATE OF MINNESOTA ' DISTRICT COURT,
COUNTY -OF HENNEPIN FOURTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT
--------------------------
Warren E. Hanson and
Sarah L. Hanson,
Plaintiffs, COMPLAINT
vs. Court File No.
Roger C. Evanson and
Marilyn Evanson,
Defendants.
------- --------------------
comes now the.,Plaintiffs for their cause of action
state and allege as followas
That the Plaintiffs.are owners of property which is
located at 7713 Marth Road,.Edina,-Minnesota, legally described
as:
The South 100 feet.of the North 833.feet of the
West -448 feet of the 'Southeast 1/4 of the- Southwest
1/4, Section 8, Township •116, Range 21, West of the
Sth Principal Meridian, except the West 33 feet
thereof.
That said Plaintiff, Warren E..Hanson, has been the
owner in fee of said property for approximately thirty (30) years,
and Plaintiff, Sarah L. Hanson, .has had an interest in said
property for over twenty-five (25) years.
III.•
That the Defendants are owners of property which is
located at 7717 Marth Rodd, Edina, Minnesota, legally described
as:
The South- 149 -6 feet of the North 981.6 feet of
the West 224 feet of the Southeast 1/4 of the
Southwest 1/4, Section 8,•Township 116, Range 21.
IV.
That Plaintiffs have used property legally described ass
The south 148.6 feet of the North 981.6.feet of
the West 48 feet of the Southeast 1/4 of the
Southwest 1/4 of Section 8, Township 116N, Range
21W, ,
for the purposes of an ingress and egress to the property for
a.period of twenty-eight (28) years. That such use of the property
has been -open, continuous,.hostile, and adverse to the rights of
the fee owners of the.property.
V. -
That the City of Edina has maintained Marth Road and
the above -described improved portion for a period of over fifteen
(15) years and continue to maintain said road, including snow
removal.
V.I. -
That the continued, open,- hostile, and adverse use of the
road by the Plaintiffs for twenty-eight (28) years grants to the
Plaintiffs a prescriptive easement over and across the property of
the Defendants.
VIZ
That attached hereto and wade a part hereof is a partial
plat of said property with the property of the Plaintiffs being
the area contained within -A, and the property of the Defendants
being the area contained within -Bo
That the Defendants have -advised the Plaintiffs of their
intent to close the access of such roadway to the property of the
Plaintiffs outright, and have constructed a fence on said property
restricting the use thereof.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs pray an Order granting a prescriptive
easement granting -a right-of-way for roadway purposes over the
land legally described as:
The South 148.6 feet of the Worth 981.6 feet of the
West 48 feet of the Southeast 1/4 of the Southwest
1/4 of Section 8, Townshtp 116N. Range 21W, Hennepin
County, Minnesota.
Curtis E. Austin
Attorney for Plaintiffs
7,30 N. F. C.
7800 Xerxes Avenue South
Bloomington, Minnesota 55431
Telephona: (612) 835-7166
R
TRYGVE A. EGGE
ATTORNEY AT LAW
RECEIVEU
ACT 22 1979
October 19, 1979
Mr. Curtis E. Austin
Attorney at Law
Northwestern Financial Center
Suite 730
7900 Xerxes Avenue South
Minneapolis, Minnesota 55431
Re: Evanson v. Hanson
My File: 2201
Dear Mr. Austin:
MERRILL HOUSE
2116 2nd Avenue South
Mpls., MN 55404
(612) 871-6470
Enclosed and served upon you by U. S. Mail is a Certificate of
Non -Readiness.
Also enclosed is my Proposed Order and Memorandum.
Please advise, if you will stipulate to the entry of a Counter-
claim, and Third Party Complaint. You earlier stated that you
would stipulate to amendment of my pleadings for a counterclaim.
Please advise.
Sincer.e1 y,
Tryove i.._4gge.
Attorney at Law
TAE/cp
Enclosures
cc: Roger and Marilyn Evanson
Mr. Thomas S. Erickson ,/
STATE OF MINNESOTA DISTRICT COURT
COUNTY OF HENNEPIN FOURTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT
Warren E. Hanson and
Sarah Hanson,
Plaintiffs,
ORDER
VS.
District Court File No. 756794
Roger C. Evanson and
Marilyn E. Evanson,
Defendants.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
That on October 301 1979, at 9:30 a.m., defendants, through
their attorney, Trygve A. Egge, appeared before the Special Term
Court. Curtis Austin, attorney for plaintiffs, did (not) appear.
That the Court having reviewed the file and being advised
on the premises hereby orders:
1. That Defendants may serve upon plaintiffs a
Counterclaim.
2. That Defendants may serve a Third Party Summons
and Complaint.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
J
Dated:
Judge of District Court
STATE OF MINNESOTA
COUNTY OF HENNEPIN
Warren E. Hanson and
Sarah Hanson,
Plaintiffs,
VS.
Roger C. Evanson and
Marilyn E. Evanson,
Defendants.
ISSUES:
I.
DISTRICT COURT
FOURTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT
MEMORANDUM OF DEFENDANTS
District Court File No. 756794
Whether Defendants may upon Motion to the Court enter and
serve a Counterclaim. ANS: YES
II.
Whether Defendants may upon Motion to the Court be granted
leave to serve a Third Party Complaint. ANS: YES
FACTS:
Plaintiffs are suing to obtain a declaratory judgment for an
easement by adverse use. Defendants contend no adverse use exists.
Further, defendants assert that any use was due to a necessity of
way, extinguished by a new access to Plaintiffs' property. Now
Plaintiffs assert informally that a certain statute M.S. §160.05
creates a public easement. In order to counter such a claim,
Defendants feel compelled to quiet title as to the issues of ease-
ments. In order to bring in all known interested or potentially
interested parties, a Third Party Complaint is necessary.
DISCUSSION:
ISSUE I.
Rule 13 M.R.C.P. provides for a counterclaim when it arises
out of the transaction. MRCP 13.01.
Rule 13.05 MRCP provides.:
"A claim which either matured or was acquired by
the pleader after serving his pleading may, with
the permission of the court, be presented as a
counterclaim."
Rule 13.06 MRCP provides:
"When a pleader fails to set up a counterclaim
through oversight, inadvertence, or excusable
neglect, or when justice requires, he may by
leave of court set up the counterclaim by
amendment."
Here the action asserted by the plaintiff in the first instance,
has been met on the merits in a prior order of the District Court
dated June 13, 1979. However, the plaintiff has informally as-
serted issues which require, the effect, a counterclaim by defen-
dants to quiet title.
It is in the interests of all parties and the Court to have
all issues relating to the property resolved in one hearing.
ISSUE II.
Rule 14.01 MRCP states:
"Within 45 days after service of the summons
upon him, and thereafter by leave of court
granted on motion upon notice to all parties
to the action, a defendant as a third -party
plaintiff may serve a summons and complaint,
together with a copy of plaintiff's complaint,
upon a person, whether or not he is a party to
the action,..."
"The purpose for impleading a third -party defendant is
to eliminate multiplicity of actions by bringing into
the pending litigation all litigants having an interest
in the total proceeding and to dispose of the entire
matter without the expense and time involved in many
separate lawsuits. Since the purpose is to eliminate
multiplicity of claims, courts should be liberal in
permitting impleader and should be reluctant to order
separate trials of the third -party actions except in
the clearest of situations where prejudice will out -
weight the desireability of a single trial." MN Prac.
Hetlund and Adamson, Vol. 1, page 508.
CONCLUSION:
The Motion for leave to:
1. Enter and serve a Counterclaim.
2. Enter and serve a Third Party Summons and Complaint.
should be granted.
Trygve A. Eggfe
Attorney for Defendants
2116 2nd Avenue South
Minneapolis, Minnesota 55404
Telephone: (612) 871-6470
STATE OF MINNESOTA
COUNTY OF HENNEPIN
Warren E. Hanson and
Sarah Hanson,
Plaintiff(s),
VS.
Roger C. Evanson and
Marilyn E. Evanson,
Defendant(s).
IN DISTRICT COURT
FOURTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT
CERTIFICATE OF NON -READINESS
District Court File # 756794
The undersigned hereby certifies.to the Court that:
1. This case is not ready for trial for the following
enumerated reasons:
A. A Motion is pending regarding entry of:
t.
1. Counterclaim
2. Third Party Summons and Complaint
2. Sufficient time shall have elapsed by the 15th
day of January , 1980 , to give the
undersigned reasonable opportunity to complete
all necessary actions or procedures and this
matter shall be ready for trial by said date.
3. A copy of this Certificate has been mailed or
delivered to Counsel for each adverse party.
Dated: October 19, 1979
To:
Attorneys' for:
Address:
By:Trygve A. Egge
Attorneys for: Defendants
Address: 2116 2nd Ave. So.
Minneapolis, MN 55404
To: Curtis A. Austin
Attorneys for: Plaintiffs
Address: 7900 Xerxes Ave. So., Suite 730
Minneapolis, PAIN 55431
, !" .0
TRYGVE A. EGGE
ATTORNEY AT LAW
October 17, 1979
Mr. Curtis E. Austin
Attorney at Law
Northwestern Financial Center
Suite 730
7900 Xerxes Avenue South
Minneapolis, Minnesota 55431
Re: Evanson v. Hanson
My File: 2201
Dear Mr. Austin:
RECEI)IEu
OCT
MERRILL HOUSE
2116 2nd Avenue South
Mpls., MN 55404
(612) 871-6470
Enclosed and herewith served upon you by U. S. Mail is a
Notice of Motion and Motion with Exhibits.
Sin cer ,
T yg A. gg
Attorney at Law
TAE/cp
Enclosures
cc: Roger and Marilyn Evanson
Mr. Thomas S. Erickson
STATE OF MINNESOTA
COUNTY OF HENNEPIN
Warren E. Hanson and
Sarah Hanson,
Plaintiffs,
VS.
Roger C. Evanson and
Marilyn E. Evanson,
Defendants,
VS.
City of Edina
Third Party Defendant,
DISTRICT COURT
FOURTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT
NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION
TO: Warren E. Hanson and Sarah Hanson, Plaintiffs, and their
attorney Curtis Austin.
Defendant moves at 9:30 a.m., on the 30th day of October,
1979, before the Special Term for leave to:
1. Enter a Counterclaim, as set forth in Exhibit A, attached.
2. Make the City of Edina, a party to this action and
that there be served upon it a Summons and Third Party Complaint,
as set forth in Exhibit B, attached hereto.
may=
Trygve"A. Egge
Attorney for Defendants
2116 2nd Avenue South
Minneapolis, Minnesota 55404
Dated: October , 1979. Telephone: (612).871-6470
r I a
EXHIBIT A
STATE OF MINNESOTA
COUNTY OF HENNEPIN
Warren E. Hanson and
Sarah Hanson,
Plaintiffs,
VS.
Roger C. Evanson and
Marilyn E. Evanson,
Defendants.
DISTRICT COURT
FOURTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT
COUNTERCLAIM
Roger C. Evanson and Marilyn E. Evanson, defendants in the
above matter, for their Counterclaim against the plaintiffs, state
and allege;
I.
That at all times mentioned in Plaintiffs' Complaint,
Defendants owned and still own that certain real property
situated in the County of Hennepin, State of Minnesota, and
described as follows:
The South 148.6 feet of the North 981.6 feet of the
West 224 feet of the Southeast 1/4 of the Southwest
1/4 of Section 8, Township 116, Range 21.
Said property is adjacent to and abutts the south side of the
Plaintiffs' property described in his Complaint.
II.
That since completion of Shaugnessy Road up to the
Plaintiffs' property, Plaintiffs had a right of way from their
said property over Defendants' adjoining property to Marth Road
to pass and re -pass freely at all times on foot or with vehicle.
The portion of Defendants' property subject to said right of way
is described as follows:
The South 148.6 feet of the North 981.6 feet of the
West 48 of the Southeast 1/4 of the Southwest 1/4 of
Section 8,,Township 116, Range 21 West.
WHEREFORE, Roger C. Evanson and Marilyn E. Evanson demand
judgment:
1. Declaring that the property described in Plaintiffs'
Complaint is no longer subject to a right of way by the Plaintiffs.
2. Declaring the property in question is vested in fee
simple in Roger C. Evanson and Marilyn E. Evanson and no other
person, entity or public or private body has any interest or
claim of tight in the use or enjoyment thereof.
.4
Trygy-b -A. Egge,"
Attorney for Defendants
2116 2nd Avenue South
Minneapolis, Minnesota 55404
Telephone: (612) 871-6470
Dated: October 1979
EXHIBIT B
STATE OF MINNESOTA
COUNTY OF HENNEPIN
Warren E. Hanson and
Sarah Hanson,
Plaintiffs,
VS.
Roger C. Evanson and
Marilyn E. Evanson,
Defendants,
VS.
City of Edina,
Third Party Defendant,
DISTRICT COURT
FOURTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT
THIRD PARTY SUMMONS
You are hereby summoned and required to serve upon Curtis
E. Austin, plaintiffs attorney, whose address is 730 N.F.C.,
7900 Xerxes Avenue South, Bloomington, Minnesota 55431, and
upon Trygve A. Egge, who is attorney for the defendants and
third party plaintiff, and whose address is 2116 2nd Avenue
South, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55404, an Answer to the Third
Party Complaint, which is herewith served upon you, within
twenty (20) days after the service of this Summons upon you
' exclusive of the day of service. If you fail to do so,
judgment by default will be taken against you for the relief
demanded in the Third Party Complaint.
There is also served upon you herewith, a copy of the
Complaint of plaintiff, which you may answer.
Tryg a JA'. Egge
Attorney for Defendant and
Third Party Plaintiff
2116 2nd Avenue South
Minneapolis, Minnesota 55404
Telephone: (612) 871-6470
Dated: October - i- 1979
EXHIBIT B
STATE OF MIN14ESOTA
DISTRICT COURT
COUNTY OF HENNEPIN
Warren E. Hanson and
Sarah Hanson,
Plaintiffs,
VS.
Roger C. Evanson and
Marilyn E. Evanson,
Defendants,
VS.
City of Edina,
Third Party Defendant,
FOURTH JUDICIAL DI,STRICT
THIRD PARTY COMPLAINT
Roger C. Evanson and Marilyn E. Evanson, defendants and
Third Party Plaintiffs in the above matter, for their Third
Party Complaint. -.against Third Party Defendants, state and allege:
I.
That Plaintiffs, Warren E. and Sarah Hanson, have served
upon Roger C. and Marilyn E. Evanson, a Complaint, a copy of
which is hereto attached as Exhibit A.
II.
That at all times mentioned in Plaintiffs' Complaint,
Defendants owned and still own that certain real property
situated in the County of Hennepin, State of Minnesota, and
q described as follows:
The South 148.6 feet of the North 981.6 feet of the
West 224 feet of the Southeast 1/4 of the Southwest
1/4 of Section 8, Township 116, Range 21.
Said property is adjacent to and abutts.the south side of
the Plaintiffs' property described in his Complaint.
That since completion of Shaugnessy Road up to the
Plaintiffs' property, Plaintiffs had a right of way from their
said property over Defendants' adjoining property to Marth Road
to pass and re -pass freely at all times on foot or with vehicle.
The portion of Defendants' property subject to said right of
way is described as follows:
The South 148.6 feet of. the North 981.6 feet of the
West 48 of the Southeast 1/4 of the Southwest 1/4 of
Section 8, Township 116, Range 21 West.
IV.
That Third Party Defendant, the City of Edina, has a
potential interest in the above described right of way under
MSA 160.05.
V.
That Third Party Defendants', potential claim is without
any right whatever, and Third.Party Defendant has no right,
title, lien or interest in or to the property described above.
IV.
That Third Party Defendants potential claim or interest
in said property constitutes a cloud on Defendants and Third
Party Plaintiffs' title to said property.
WHEREFORE, Defendant and Third Party Plaintiff, prays:
1. That Third Party Defendants and all persons -.or
entities claiming under them,.be required to set forth the
nature of their claims to said real property;
2. That all adverse claims to said real property be
determined by a decree of this court.
3. That said decree declare and adjudge that Defendant
and Third Party Plaintiff owns in fee simple, and is entitled
to the quiet and peaceful possession of, said real property;
and that Third Party Defendants and all persons or entities
claiming under them, have no estate, right, title, lien, or inter-
est in or to said real property or any part thereof;
4. That said decree permanently enjoin Third Party -
Defendants and all persons or entities claiming under them,
from asserting any adverse claim to defendant -third party
plaintiffs' title to said.property.
5. For costs of this action; and
6. For such other and further relief as the court deems
just and proper.
Trygve/A. Egge
Attorney for Defendants and
Third Party Plaintiffs
2116 2nd Avenue South
Minneapolis, Minnesota 55404
Telephone: (612) 871-6470
Dated: October 1979
. A ;
eji
ii
J
. el
. ..... ....
.721
-A
STATE OF MINNESOTA
DISTRICT COURT
COUNTY OF HENNEPIN FOURTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT
----------------------------------------------------------------
Warren E. Hanson and
Sarah Hanson,
Plaintiffs,
VS.
Roger C. Evanson and
Marilyn E. Evanson,
Defendants,
and STIPULATION OF DISMISSAL
WITHOUT PREJUDICE
Roger C. Evanson and
Marilyn E. Evanson,
VS.
City of Edina,
Third -Party Plaintifffs,
Third -Party Defendant.
The above -entitled matter, having been fully settled
and compromised, it is now therefore mutually stipulated and
agreed between the parties to the above -entitled action, through
their attorneys of record, as follows:
1. That the above -entitled action be, and the same
hereby is, dismissed without prejudice as to the claims against
the Third -Party Defendant herein.
2. That a suitable Order for Judgment and Dismissal
and Judgment of Dismissal may be entered herein in accordance
with the form herein stated..
3. That notice of entry of Judgment is expressly
waived and the Judgment may be entered without further notice
to any party hereto.
Dat this day of June, 1980.
7
ry e A. Eg4e John H. Lindstrom
Attorney for Evansons Atty. for City of Edina
2116 2nd Avenue South Dorsey Law Firm
Mpls., MN 55404 2300 First National Bank Bldg.
Minneapolis, MN 55402
STATE OF MINNESOTA
DISTRICT COURT
COUNTY OF HENNEPIN FOURTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT
----------------------------------------------------------------
Warren E. Hanson and
Sarah Hanson,
VS.
Roger C. Evanson and
Marilyn E. Evanson,
Plaintiffs,
Defendants,
and STIPULATION OF DISMISSAL
WITHOUT PREJUDICE
Roger C. Evanson and
Marilyn E. Evanson,
VS.
City of Edina,
Third -Party Plaintifffs,
Third -Party Defendant.
The above -entitled matter, having been fully settled
and compromised, it is now therefore mutually stipulated and
agreed between the parties to the above -entitled action, through
their attorneys of record, as follows:
1. That the above -entitled action be, and the same
hereby is, dismissed without prejudice as to the claims against
the Third -Party Defendant herein.
2. That a suitable Order for Judgment and Dismissal
and Judgment of Dismissal may be entered herein in accordance
with the form herein stated.
3. That notice of entry of Judgment is expressly
waived and the Judgment may be entered without further notice
to any party hereto.
ed this day of June, 1980.
,l
T gve-A. Eg John H. Lindstrom
Attorney for vansons Atty. for City of Edina
2116 2nd Avenue South' Dorsey Law Firm
Mpls., MN 55404 2300 First National Bank Bldg.
Minneapolis, MN 55402
i
STATE OF MINNESOTA
DISTRICT COURT
COUNTY OF HENNEPIN FOURTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT
----------------------------------------------------------------
Warren E. Hanson and
Sarah Hanson,
Plaintiffs,
VS.
Roger C. Evanson and
Marilyn E. Evanson,
Defendants,
and STIPULATION OF DISMISSAL
WITHOUT/PREJUDICE
Roger C. Evanson and
Marilyn E. Evanson,
VS.
City of Edina,
Third -Party Plaintifffs,
Third -Party Defendant.
The above -entitled matter, having been fully settled
and compromised, it is now therefore mutually stipulated and
agreed between the parties to the above -entitled action, through
their attorneys of record, as follows:
1. That the above -entitled action be, and the same
hereby is, dismissed without prejudice as to the claims against
the Third -Party Defendant herein.
2. That a suitable Order for Judgment and Dismissal
and Judgment of Dismissal may be entered herein in accordance
with the form herein stated.
3. That notice of entry of Judgment is expressly
waived and the Judgment may be entered without further notice
to any party hereto.
Dat!�this day of June, 1980.
T y A. gge John H. Lindstrom
Attorney for Evansons Atty. for City of Edina
2116 2nd Avenue South Dorsey Law Firm
Mpls., MN 55404 2300 First National Bank Bldg.
Minneapolis, MN 55402
B
STATE OF MINNESOTA
DISTRICT COURT
COUNTY OF HENNEPIN FOURTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT
Warren E. Hanson and
Sarah Hanson,
V.
Roger C. Evanson and
Marilyn E. Evanson,
Plaintiffs,
Defendants,
and STIPULATION OF DISMISSAL
WITH PREJUDICE
Roger C. Evanson and
Marilyn E. Evanson,
City of Edina,
Third -Party Plaintiffs,
Third -Party Defendant.
The above -entitled matter, having been fully settled
and compromised, it is now therefore mutually stipulated and
agreed between the parties to the above -entitled action, through
their attorneys of record, as follows:
1. That the above -entitled action be, and the same
hereby is, dismissed with prejudice as to the claims against
the Third -Party Defendant herein.
2. That a suitable Order for Judgment and Dismissal
and Judgment of Dismissal may be entered herein in accordance
with the form herein stated.
3. That notice of entry of Judgment is expressly
waived and the Judgment may be entered without further notice
to any party hereto.
Dated this day of June, 1980.
Trygve A. Egge John H. Lindstr m
Attorney for Evansons Atty. for City of Edina l
2116 2nd Avenue South Dorsey Law Firm
Minneapolis, MN 55404 2300 First National Bank Bldg..
Minneapolis, MN 55402
STATE OF MINNESOTA
DISTRICT COURT
COUNTY OF HENNEPIN
Warren E. Hanson and
Sarah Hanson,
kt�
Roger C. Evanson and
Marilyn E. Evanson,
and
Roger C. Evanson and
Marilyn E. Evanson,
v.
City of Edina,
Plaintiffs,
Defendants,
FOURTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT
STIPULATION OF DISMISSAL .
WITH PREJUDICE
Third -Party Plaintiffs,
Third -Party Defendant.
The above -entitled matter, having been fully settled
and compromised,'it is now therefore mutually stipulated and
agreed between the parties to the above -entitled action, through
their attorneys of record, as follows:
1. That the above -entitled action be, and the same
hereby is, dismissed with prejudice as to the claims against
the Third -Party Defendant herein.
2. That a suitable Order for Judgment and Dismissal
and Judgment of Dismissal may be entered herein in accordance
with the form herein stated.
3. That notice of entry of Judgment is expressly
waived and the Judgment may be entered without further notice
to any party hereto.
Dated this day of June, 1980. /
v
Trygve A. Egge John H. Li.ndstr m may.
Attorney for Evansons Atty. for City of Edina `
2116 2nd Avenue South Dorsey Law Firm
Minneapolis, MN 55404 2300 First National Bank Bldg.
Minneapolis, MN 55402
RELEASE
This Release is made by Warren E. Hanson and Sarah
Hanson, and is binding on their heirs, successors, assigns, and
anyone claiming by or through them. This Release is given for
the benefit of the City of Edina, Minnesota and all of its
successors and assigns.
Warren E. Hanson and Sarah Hanson do hereby release
the City of Edina from any liability and claims which were made,
or which could have been made in the action entitled Warren E.
Hanson and Sarah Hanson v. Roger C. Evanson and Marilyn Evanson,
v. City of Edina brought in Hennepin County District Court,
Fourth Judicial District, and concerning the property more
particularly described as follows:
The South 148.6 feet of the North 981.6 feet of the
West 224 feet of the Southeast 1/4 of the Southwest
1/4 of Section 8, Township 116, Range 21; and
The South 100 feet of the North 833 feet of the
West 448 feet of the Southeast 1/4 of the Southwest
1/4, Section 8, Township 116, Range 21, West of the
5th Principal Meridian, except the West 33 feet
thereof.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned have executed these
is
presents this / ' day of 1980.
a 4 A z,— � _.
Warren E. Hanson
Sa ah Hanson
Subscribed and sworn to before
me this day of 1980.
Notary Public
" CURTIS E. AUSTIN
A �,Y
• HENrv�ru'v Ur Tt �.
NOTA{ty ru,y1-
MY COMMISSION EX --' AUO. B. 19651
RELEASE
This Release is made by Warren E. Hanson and Sarah
Hanson, and is binding on their heirs, successors, assigns, and
anyone claiming by or through them. This Release is given for
the benefit of the City of Edina, Minnesota and all of its
successors and assigns.
Warren E. Hanson and Sarah Hanson do hereby release
the City of Edina from any liability and claims which were made,
or which could have been made in the action entitled Warren E.
Hanson and Sarah Hanson v..Roger C. Evanson and Marilyn Evanson,
v. City of Edina brought in Hennepin County District Court,
Fourth Judicial District, and concerning the property more
particularly described as follows:
The South 148.6 feet of the North 981.6 feet of the
West 224 feet of the Southeast 1/4 of the Southwest
1/4 of Section 8, Township 116, Range 21; and
The South 100 feet of the North 833 feet of the
West 448 feet of the Southeast 1/4 of the Southwest
1/4, Section 8, Township 116, Range 21, West of the
5th Principal Meridian, except the West 33 feet
thereof.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned have executed these
presents this day of
Subscribed and sworn to before
me this day of
Notary Public
, 1980.
Warren E. Hanson
Sarah Hanson
. 1980.
RELEASE
This Release is made by Roger C. Evanson and Marilyn
Evanson, and is binding on their heirs, successors, assigns, and
anyone claiming by or through them. This Release is given for
the benefit of the City of Edina, Minnesota and all of its
successors and assigns.
Roger C. Evanson and Marilyn Evanson do hereby release
the City of Edina from any liability and claims which were made,
or which could have been made in the action entitled Warren E.
Hanson and Sarah Hanson v. Roger C. Evanson and Marilyn Evanson,
v. City of Edina brought in Hennepin County District Court,
Fourth Judicial District, and concerning the property more
particularly described as follows:
The South 148.6 feet of the North 981.6 feet of the
West 224 feet of the Southeast 1/4 of the Southwest
1/4 of Section 8, Township 116, Range 21; and
The South 100 feet of the North 883 feet of the
West 448 feet of the Southeast 1/4 of the Southwest
1/4, Section 8, Township 116, Range 21, West of the
5th Principal Meridian, excapt the West 33 feet
thereof.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned have executed these
presents this day of , 1980.
Subscribed and sworn to before me
this day of
Notary Public
. 1980.
Roger C. Evanson
Marilyn Evanson
`1 0
f $ "►
N
r _ jT
RA
-
O.
+... 4 r woe ►'� �M~ 2 49'40"
•"� =v- ,;',.�� w , too 137.4-
Ne9V9'46".r SS 4 96
.5714
oy �05 ;2 BRAEMAR
•° rohA y 69°44 300.05
44 t5 < y
at o Q/ " . SO to32� ` '0 375
4 3 6RAEMAR HtLI S s �-
49�8 HILLS a
<m
Ir
4
P
_ 9. d x S�34912E1 �' Z t 11 T 8 a esf, 260.7t
Y
s r 8iH' "Aoo.s';S2zsE °
733.
IPA
e 3sr��
W
4015 OcF i� /�' av cvii b0 A!�bc�'4�448Nr9*49'40•5
SO°5457E o ^�
°o
ZZ
13
1431
?oil,
19 3 ! t to
4i-
s6 D J� Q f P
:� .. 4 i5
)4 , ua
AD o
- .. � ,rho•. D. .. f 238.ot .-: � - o �'• __ \ �-
__._ �O
.• N 6%.�•. i 0 9,56• ;-W 0� _ P Fn
�z. DUT(pt nt , w cn _
- 4'� - .J •� -. � .. W ,. ` l i .. - `.-•--Z-•.— tip - _ � 4,. 0
. 4 30 S6 3
a -
3 .°
y ,
- Q
e � c
ors s0- o"r; p:1f51ZZM ° 40 30 13Z - 48 ay�lea 735 t35� 30 35o.1b N69 P 20 F o tt684 0 iL� ~
' �9, O c�` S B9'Sb •37 "WZp§.98 o i; � v ; v 8 � v' .�hi: G .�r. ter_ • ...---- -r3
v
1.
i
_-
!r
__ _ __-
-;i -
k4 le S-P/U/rd
III � -a-- r>--T'
�_-a-, nd --
-.I
S =2-7
DORSEY,
MARQUART, WLNDHORST, WEST 8L HALLADAY
DONAID WEST
J IIE"labs 2300
FIRST NATIONAL BANK BUILDING
FAITH L OMMAN
f.
JOHN S
'
DAVID A PAMMEIM
JO.MSA
G.C; SIROUART
JO'+N r wIMO+CRST
M(NRT MALLAD.Y
ROBERT0. FLO
ROBERT 0, iLOtTEN
JOMN 0 LEVINE
M I N N E A P O L I S, MINNESOTA S S 4 0 2
ROBEQT J SILVERMAN
JULE Al MAN 10PO
ROBERT J STRUYR
-
WILLIAM R. MIBBS
0.
ARTMUR B. _TMCY
MICHAEL A OLSON
HILLJOP
BOCL
PNILIP P. BO[LTCR
RUSSELL W LINOGUIST
LARRY W JOHNSON
(612) 340-2600 - -
WILLIAM B PAYNE
DAYIO R, SPINA
NO4ACE "ITEM
TMOMAS S MAY
O. LARRY GRIFFITH
CABLE: DOROW
JAN STUD RMANS
vIPO1L N. HILL
CRND A. eeER
TELEX• 29-0605
0.A SCMMARTZBAUER
$TEVEN KCMAMPUN
P092Ri V TAR
R0PERTJ-JDNNSON
DAVID L MCCUSKCV
TMOMAS 0 POE
TELEC0PIER:(612) 340-2666
DAVID M FRONEN
N 0 MASSELOUIST
JAMES M D`MAGAN
TMOMAS W. TINANAN
JOM F TUrTLC
PETER CORSEY
CCCPOE ? FLAM"M
JOMN M MASON
MICHAEL W WRIGHT
1466 W-FIRST NATIONAL BANK BUILDING
ROBERT A HEIBERG
CURTIS LPot
LARRY LVICARET -
ST. PAUL. MINNESOTA SSIOI
ARTLE
[MCI -L RAO"
M:CMACJ ADNCR
ARTHUR E. WEISBERG
LOPEN R RNOfT
(612) 227-6017
PAU R
STIS
GUAMC C. JOSEPM
PMILLIP 11 MARTIN
CUR L L STINPEER
JAME9 B. \'ESS EI
RECSC C JOM.SOR
MICHAEL TRUCARDCANO
WILLIAM A w r..3CR
CHARLES J MAJE.BTEIN -
JONAT14AN VILLAGE CENTER
WILLIAM J PEPPEL
_J. SCMWARTIBAJER
CHARLES A GEER
CHASKA. MINN ESOTA 55318
JAI -IS A FLATHOMAOER
N.eRc'+M
JOMNC IWAAAIAM
(612) 446-4012
WILLIAM A JOMNSTONE
C()0.E D MAMONIY
JOMN R. WICAS
WILLIAM E BOWEN
THOMEIJUS
TNOMAS S. ERICASON
EUGENE L, JOHNSON
WILLIAM P LUTMER
WLLIAM C. BABCOCR
JOMN W WIMCNOPST• JR.
DOUGLAS 0. MCF
NICMAEL E BRESS
MICHAEL PRICMARO
IIS THIRD STREET SOUTHWEST
.)AND
DAVID LBOEMM,'
RAIMONO A,REISTER
WILLIAM R. SOrM
ROCHESTER, MINNESOTA SS901
ALA. D I LILAND
JONN J. TAYLOR
TMOMAS R MANTNEY
(507) 266-3156
LAIRE.CE R. OLIVER
BERNARD G. "11.2EN
RICHARD 0 SWANSON
FRANA 0.VOIOT
Mr. Robert C. Dunn
Edina City Engineer
4801 West 50th Street
Edina, Minnesota 55424.
Re:
WILLIAM E MARi1M
WILLIAM M- MI.PCE.JR.
STEPHEN C. SMANN
POSERT A BURMS
TONI A BEITE
MICHEL A LAFONO
BRADFORD L FER¢uSON
ROGER J-MAGNUSON
J. ROBERT W98S
JAY CODA
STANLEY REIM
CHARLES L POTUINIM
VERLAME L ENCORF
DENNIS BUaATTI
GEOROGNN BECHER
ROBERT ROBBINS
BMRY•0 GLAZER
PETER MENCRUSON
MICMY MAY
IRVING WEISER
STEPMEN GOTTSCHALK
TMOMAS ELRIMS
Or COUNSEL
DAVID E. BRONSOM
LEAVITT R. SAR.ER
GEORGE E ANOERSON
ROBERT LVAA.FOSSEN
P
I
Pit
rip IL
Dear Bob:
The City is claiming a road easement for the east frontage road
of Highway 169-212 from Link Road north. A portion of that frontage road ♦L'
was obtained by recorded easement. However, an additional portion, crossing U
I. over land now owned, as I recall, by Watson Construction Company,. was obtained
by maintenance and public use for six years pursuant to Minnesota Statute
9160.05. That statute provides that if maintained and -used for six years,
A public road results having a width of 66 feet, being 33 feet on either side
of the maintained centerline. However, a recent Minnesota case, Barfnecht,
et al. v. Town Board of Hollywood (Minn. Sup. Ct., July 22, 1975), held that
a dedication by public use, the language of the statute to the contrary not-
withstanding, cannot constitutionally exceed the amount of roadway actually
used. The court interpreted "used area".so as to include shoulders and
ditches that are needed and have actually been used to support and maintain
the traveled portion of the roadway. Therefore, the portion of the east
frontage road that is claimed by maintenance and usage can be claimed only
to the extent of its actual use, not to the extent of 66 feet as stated in .
the statute.
September 17, 1975
Street Improvement No. BA-100
If you have any questions concerning this opinion or its application
in any given circumstance, please advise.
Very truly yours,
TSE/abc Thomas S. Erickson
cc: ir. J. N. Dalen
. Mr. Warren C. Hyde
c ;e C � f ,=► .�E. ,:,�\1,
0
MEMO
TO: FILE
FROM: T. S. Erickson
DATE: October 31, 1978
RE: Edina re Marth Road Easements, October 1975
On October 30, 1978, I spoke with Fran Hoffman.
He advised me that the City Building Department had, on
Friday, October 27, 1978, issued a building permit to Evenson,
who intends to build a garage on Parcel 4230, just at the
north end of the existing dedicated Marth Road off 78th Street,
in Edina. This garage, according to Hoffman, would be upon
the northerly extension of Marth Road that the City has been
maintaining and claims to be a public road by virtue of Minn.
Stat. §160.05. I advised Hoffman to call Evenson and tell
him that the permit was issued by mistake and is being rescinded
and to follow that up with a letter by certified mail, return
receipt requested. Rescission is on the theory that the permit
was issued under a mistake, the mistake being that the permit
would allow construction of a garage upon a public road and
therefore should not have been given. I further advised
Hoffman of the case involving the Town Board of Holl wood
handed down by the Minnesota Supreme Court on July 2975,
which held that a dedication by public use under Minn. Stat.
§160.05 was valid only to the extent that the public had actually
maintained a roadway and could not exceed in width the "used
area" and that the phrase "used area" included ditches and
shoulders that were needed and had actually been used to sup-
port and maintain the traveled portion of the road.
Fran was going to follow up and make the necessary
call and write the necessary letter.
TSE/abc
DONA
qgE
4801 WEST 50TH STREET. EDINA. MINNESOTA 55424 RECEIVED
612.927-8861
November 8, 1978 NOV 10 1978
Mr. Curt Austin
Attorney at Law
7900 Xerxes Avenue South
Minneapolis, MN 55444
RE: Warren Hansen Subdivision
Dear Curt:
As you know, the.subject subdivision was continued at the last Planning
Commission meeting in order to review the Marth Court access problem. Since
that time we received a revised subdivision plan which shows the proposed
lot which contains Hansen's huuse accessing easterly to Shaughnessey Road.
by way of a neck lot.. Based upon past Planning Commission and Council
actions on such lot arrangements, I am quite certain that this subdivision
plan would not be approved.
. .Also since the last meeting, we have received a building permit application
from the property owner immediately to .the south of the Hansen property.
This application proposed the construction of a detached garage on the
westerly extreme of the property. This construction would effectively
preclude Hansen's access to Marth Court. We have withheld approval of
this permit pending resolution of -the Marth Court problem.
Due to the above referenced permit application, I believe that a resolution
to the Marth Court problem must be pursued.immediateiy. In that.the Marth
Court extension would be of limited public value, we believe that it is
your client's obligation to.secure this right of way. In the past, the
Council has agreed to assist in such acquisitions, but has maintained that
the property owner must bear all cost associated with t e acquisition.- In
any event, I am convinced that acquisition of this. access is necessary in
order to secure approval of the proposed subdivision.
Please review this matter and advise me of your thoughts. Obviously, we
are quite concerned with our ability to indefinitely withhold the building
permit for the garage to the south.
Sincerely,
Gordon L. Hughes
Director of Planning
Edina Planning Department
cc: /r. Thomas S. Erickson
Mr. Kenneth Rosland
S - 2- 7
HORSEY, MARQUART, WINDHORST, WEST $_ HALLADAY
"LL`MJMe"'EL 2300
FIRST NATIONAL BANK BUILDING
FAITH LONMAN
\LLIAMEMARTIN
JDw.4 S .HB95
DAVID A RANHEIM
W!LIIAM H. HIPPELJR.
►n•:-C�ST
P19SRT 0. FLOT7EN
ROwERT J. S14VERMAM
STEPMEN G. SHANII
JOHN 0 LEVINE M I
N N E A P O L I S, MINNESOTA 55402
WILLU n R. w1965
PDUR1 A BURNS
J.L= r a.v:OPO
R09EPT J STP'jTN
-
JOHN O. KIR9T
70N1 A BEITE -
A=-' 5
MICMAEL A CLSOn
-
i.:PALTER
A.
' P� .'_�bu!ST
LARRTr J04N50" -
- - (612) 340-2600 .-.
- WILLIP
PANS
DRAW RD LFED N
+� R a--
TNOMAS S MAT
- CABLE' DOROW
JAN Sr L-
JAI! STUL'RMANS _
ROGER J. A NUSON
J. SSON
G. LARRT GR-FFITM -
-
MART
J. ROB HIB
NIBBS
JAY
V�
VAIG A 6SCN
TELEX: 29-0605 -
STEV- MPLIN
STC�En ACHAMPUn
JAY COON
COOT
FS9E^. T '+?S1t
CA'nD L M:CUSKET
-
TELEGO PIER:(612) 340-2868.
DAVID N. FROMEN
STANLET REIN -
- _ J —50M
TMCMAS 0 MOE -
TMCMAS W. TINKMAM
CHARLEE L
S-a.B.F_Z :ST
NTTI
JAM ES M ONA„AN
-
JON F T•JTTLE
EhOORFIN
VERUNC L CNOORF
Tx _� J�=:c
J:N.r M MA50v
1468 W-FIRST NATIONAL BANK BUILDING -
AHEyERG
aMN
_
. 'GE_1 - ..ae�if
r'/_Y
MdMAE: W'+P•GMT
ST. PAUL•MINNESOTA 55I01
ENEERT
ENE- BAPriE
GE BEE
GE04GEANM BACKER
=
-' E . SBEPG
LAPRT L VIC•. RET
LOPEn R A.NGTT _
(612) 227-8017 _
MICMAEL J RAOMEP
PAUL SCNECRER
P09ERT H09BIN5
BARRF D GLAZER
i:AA.E E.=?.
PMILLIP " MARTIN
CURDS L STINE
PETERMICKY NENORIASON
- .:—Ss 3.. _SET
C JO
TRUCANL
NICNT M
- re1+..-- =POI
[HABEAS J HAaENSTEIN
CHARL AdEN
JONATMAN VILLAGE CENTER
WILLIAM
waluH J KEPPEL
1RVING WEISER ' -
E
C L Sl= ... _A.ER
[MAPLES A GEE.R
CHASKA. MINNESOTA 55318
JAMES A.FLADER
STEPHEN GOTTSCHALK
{...3 H },:t_M
JOMN C Z+AKMAN
(612) 448-4012
WILLIAM A.JOHNSTON& -
THOMAS CLKINS
C}+EuUS :. CWT
JOmv R.+ICAS
-
WILLIA.M E-BOWEN
T'—_-+ S 5.?USGM
EUGEME L:OI...1 ON
-
WILLIAM P. LUTHER
C
JOMN W. WINE'+C.-ST. JR.
DOUGLAS O. MCFARLANO
OF COUNSEL
.•CAA_ ° 55
MAeAEI PRIG ARD -
IIS THIRD STREET SOUTHWEST -
ONAO L BOEHMEN
DAVID E BRONSON
D = —D A='c_S--ZR
'WILLIAM FL50-" -
ROCHESTER, MINNESOTA 55901
ALAN D G:WLANO
LEAVITT R. BARNER
Y' N 1 :A ::R
TMCMAS R MANTLE'
(507) 288-3156
LA'+REKCE R. OLIVER
GEORGE E.ANOERSOM
�..VO 5 :-�.ZEM
RICHARD G S.AASON
_ FRANK H. VOIGT
R0 9ERT L VANFOSSEN
September 17, 1975
Mr.
Robert C. Duna
Edina
City Engineer
4801
West 50th Street
Edina, Minnesota 55424
Re: 'Street Improvement No. BA-100
Dear Bob:
The City is claiming a road easement for the eastfrontage road
of Highway 169-212 from Link Road north.: A portion of that frontage road
was obtained by recorded easement. However, an additional portion, crossing
over land now owned, as I recall, by Watson Construction Company, was obtained
by maintenance.and public use for six years pursuant to Minnesota Statute
§160.05. That statute provides that if maintained and used for six years,
a public road results having a width of 66 feet, being 33 feeton either side
of the maintained centerline. However, a_recent Minnesota case, Barfnecht,
et al. v. Town 3oard of. Hollvwood.(Minn..Sup. Ct., July 22, 1975), held that
a.dedication.by public use,.the language of the statute to the contrary not-
withstanding, cannot constitutional) exceed the amount of roadway actually
used. The court interpre ad -used area" so as to include shoulders and
ditches that are needed and have actually been used to support and maintain
the traveled portion of the roadway. Therefore, the portion of the east
frontage road .that is claimed by maintenance and usage can be claimed only
to the extent of its actual use, not to the extent of 66 feet as stated in
the statute.
If you have any questions concerning this opinion or its application
in any given circumstance, please advise.
TSE/abc'
cc: 'Mr. J. N. Dalen
,ir. Warren C. Hyde
Very truly yours,
Thomas S. Erickson
Musual risks they face1.their
k
The state argues that this case is�
Schwartz v. Talmo, supra. where a 'clause
far workers' compensation benefits was upheld
against oat dal ;
challenge. In Schwartz, however, this court was called uPoa f
the legislature's decision to exclude suicide victims from x
workers,
compensation death benefits of any_ kind.5 Here, the legislature has
5 Three months after our decision in Schwartz, the legislature
amended Y..inn. Stat. S 176.021, subd. 1, stri i'Tc ng out the language exclud-
ing suicide victims from compensation, which Schwartz enforced. Minn.
Laws 1973, ch. 623.
already permitted recovery of death benefits by Otis Ondler's depend-
ants. The only question before us is whether the classification -
azcluding heart attack victims from the workers who will receive the
additional death benefit has a rational basis. We hold that it does
not. The classification, lacking a rational basis, denies equal pro-
tection under the Fourteenth Amendment of the U. S. Constitution and
Article I, Section 2 of the Minnesota Constitution.
Reversed.
ri LZ (9 ell rt
No. 342 HUBQ A D T COUNTY Otis,
II alrJ iDiti [11J V lJl� 1 1 mod, J.
Albert D. Shinneman, John A. Masog, Attorney, Park Rapids
Respondent,
49423 vs.
Arago Township, et al, Gregory D. Larson, Attorney, Park
Rapids
Appellants.
S Y L L A B U S
1. To establish a public road pursuant to Minn. Stat. S 160.05,
subd.l (1978), the road must be used by the public and maintained by
an appropriate agency of government for a continuous period of at
least six years.
2. For purposes of determining whether a road was maintained
by an appropriate agency of government so as to satisfy Minn. Stat.
S 160.05, subd. 1 (1978), the question is whether the agency would
have had authority to maintain the road if the road had already.
become a public highway.
3. Adjoining townships may agree to divide responsibility for
maintaining roads on or along town lines in such manner that one
township acquires the duty to maintain a portion of an existing road
running along the town line but entirely within the other township.
4. The record discloses no evidence of physical action within
the six years prior to the commencement of this action that was
either intended to or sufficient to close the land against public
use and thereby toll the six -year period contained in Minn. Stat.
S 160.05, subd. 1 (1978).
5. Where a public highway has been created by operation of
Minn. Stat. S 160.05, subd. 1 (1978), there is no authority for
awarding damages to the affected landowner.
FRIDAY. JANUARY 4. 1080 FINANCE and COMMERCE 113
6. Where a petition to vacate a town road is filed and contains
the eight signatures required by Minn. Stat. 5 164.07, subd. 1 (1978).
and where, before the town board either acts or is required to act on
the petition by Minn. Stat. S 164.07. subd. 2 (1978)', a number of
signers request the withdrawal of their names so that the number of
remaining signers is less than eight, there is no authority under
164.07 for the town board to act on the petition.
Award of damages and appraiser fees reversed. Case remanded
with directions to enter judgment for defendants.
Heard before Sheran, C.J.. Otis, and Kelly, JJ., and considered
and decided by the court en banc.
OTIS, Justice.( Han. Clinton W. Wyant, District Court Trial Judge).
In October 1976 plaintiff Albert Shinneman petitioned the Arago
Township Board to vacate a road crossing his property that had never
been officially dedicated. The town board took no action on the petition. '
By a complaint served November 4, 1976, plaintiff sued to enjoin defendant
townships, Arago and Lake Emma, from using and maintaining the road, and,
in the alternative, he requested that the court vacate the road or award
him damages. The defendant townships answered alleging that the road
had been established as a public road via statutory user pursuant to
Minn. Stat. S 160.05, subd. 1 (1976), and that plaintiff is precluded
from recovering damages.
After a trial without a jury, the trial court concluded that Arago
Township had taken plaintiff's property by establiahinv a town road
pursuant to 6 160.05, subd. 1, and that plaintiff was entitled to
compensation. Further proceedings were ordered to fix damages. Judgment
was subsequently entered for the sum of $6,470.00. Arago Township was
also charged 5500.00 for appraiser fees. Defendants appealed. We
reverse the trial court's award of damages and appraiser fees and remand
with directions to enter judgment for defendants.
In 1953 plaintiff purchased some property in Arago Township.
The land, lying south of Hubbard County Road Forty, is bordered on
the south by Potato Lake and on the east by the Arago-Lake Emma
township line. The lot is 300 feet deep and contains approximately
verbally register his objections to public maintenance of the road,
the record discloses no other physical action. I
On October 4, 1976, plaintiff presented.to-.the Arago Township
Board a petition requesting vacation of,the road. The petition
contained eight signatures as required byNinn. Stat. S 164.07,
subd. 1 (1978). Three of the eight original signers, however, later
signed a counter petition and requested in writing that their names
be withdrawn from plaintiff's petition. 'While both. petitions were
considered at the board's November 1, 1976, meeting, no action has
ever been taken with respect to plaintiff's petition.
1. Our initial question is whether a public road was established
pursuant to Minn. Stat. S 160.05, subd. 1 (1978).1 The requirements
1 Minn. Stat. S 160.05, subd. 1 (1978) providesc
When any road or portion thereof shall have been used and kept
in repair and worked for at least six years continuously as a public
highway, the same shall be deemed dedicated to the public • • • and
be and remain, until lawfully vacated, a public highway whether the
same has ever been established as a public highway or not • • •
of the statute are (1) use by the public and (2) maintenance at the
expense of an appropriate agency of government -(3) over a continuous
period of at least six years. Anderson v. Birkeland, 229 Minn. 77,
80, 38 N.W.2d 215, 218 (1949).
The evidence leaves no doubt that the'public use requirement has
been satisfied. While traffic over the road was not copioug, the road
was used by those members -of the public who could naturally be expected
to enjoy it. That is sufficient. Id. at 82, 38 N.W.2d at 219.
2. A more serious issue -is whether the road has been maintained
by an appropriate agency of government. While this road branches off
a road on the Lake Emma-Arago tarn line, it lies entirely within the
territory of Arago Township. At the same time the road was maintained
by Lake Emma Township.
The statute, *inn. Stat. S 160.05, subd. 1 (1978). states that the
road must be maintained "as a public highway." Clearly,until the six
years have passed the road is not,a public highway, but for purposes of
determining whether the statutory requirements have been met, it is
nevertheless treated as such. The maintenance must be of a quality and
character appropriate to an already existing public road. Thus, if a
governmental agency would have been authorized to maintain this road had
The road in controversy branches off a road that runs on the
township line south from County Road Forty. It lies along the eastern
edge of plaintiff's property. Although there was some use and main-
tenance of the road prior to the early 1960's, such use was noncontin-
uous and unsystematic. During this period the road existed as an
eight- to ten -foot wide grassy center roadway.
Sometime during or prior to the early 1960's, however, the
townships of Lake Emma and Arago agreed to divide responsibility for
maintaining roads on or along this township line, with Lake Emma
charged with maintaini_`3 roads south of County Road Forty. The road
over plaintiff's property diverges only a short distance, no more
than sixty feet, from the township line and was treated as an extension
of the road on the town line. Thus, while the road lies wholly within
Arago Township, Lake Emma began maintaining it sometime between 1960
and 1962. In a letter dated January 11, 1962, the Lake Emma Township
Hoard informed plaintiff that 'Lake Emma will act to have this road
maintained as previously agreed with Arago Township and ' • • any
action or actions to move said road shall be up to the Township of
Arago in which said road is located.'
The road has been maintained on a consistent basis since the
early 1960's. while the northern portion received somewhat more
attention at first than did the southern part, the maintenance was
sufficient to keep the road open to the lake. The evidence shows
clearly that Lake Emma continued to maintain this road through the
commencement of this action. over the period of maintenance the
width of the road was gradually increased to about twenty feet.
Plaintiff testified at trial that he blocked passage on the
road at least twice between 1961 and 1963. On the first occasion
the obstruction was removed after plaintiff was contacted by township
officials. The second time, plaintiff placed a log across the road
with the purpose of preventing a certain driver from damaging the
road while it was muddy. when the road dried, and before he was
contacted by governmental officials, plaintiff removed the log. On
at least two other occasions, at the request of county officials,
plaintiff moved property that had been parked in a manner that
partially obstructed the roadway. In neither instance was any
obstruction intended by plaintiff. While plaintiff continued to
5 160.05, subd. 1.
3. The question therefore, is whether Lake Emma. could have .exer-
cised any authority to maintain a. public road outsideits territory under
these.circumstances.
In certain circumstances townships are permitted to act officL&Ily
beyond their territorial boundaries. Minn. Stat. 5 160.07 (1978). for
example, pe--mite township road authorities to expend. reasonable sums
to assist in the improvement and maintenance of roads lying beyond the
boundary of and leading into such town.2 Minn. Stat. 5 164.12 (1978)
12 Minn. Stat. 5 160.07 (1978) provides:
The road authority of any county, town or city may appropriate and
expend such reasonable sums as it may deem proper to assist in the
improvement and maintenance of roads, bridges, or ferries lying beyond
the boundary of and leading into such county town or city.
provides that adjoining towns may establish, alter, and maintain
roads 'on or along the line between such towns.'3 (It should be noted
3 Minn. Stat. 5.164.12 (1978) provides in part:
Subdivision I. Proposal to establish. When adjoining towns pro-
pose to establish, alter, or vacate a road on or along the line between
such towns they shall proceed as hereinafter provided.
Subd. 2. Division of responsibilities. The town boards shall
divide the length of the road proposed to be established, altered, or
vacated into two parts. When it is proposed to establish or alter a
road, the division shall be made so as to divide as nearly equal as
possible the cost of right of way, construction, and maintenance of the
entire road. If the proposal is to vacate a road, the division shall be
made so as to divide as nearly equal as possible any damages that muy
be occasioned thereby.
Subd. 3. Agreement. After the division the boards shall enter
into an agreement specifying which part shall be vacated, or opened,
constructed, and maintained b each. Thereafter, each board shall
proceed in the manner ann& subject to the same review as provided in
section 164.06 or section 164.07. —
.that the predecessor to 5 164.12 referred only to roads "on the line"
between two towns. Minn. Stat. 5 163.17 (1957).) when such roads
are to be established or altered the town boards are to divide the
cost and responsibility for maintenance, and they are directed to
enter an agreement with regard thereto.
These statutes evince an intent that town lines not operate as
insuperable barriers. Townships may enter agreements of mutual
convenience regarding roads on or along town lines. Even though
a town line runs down the center of a road, the adjoining towns are
not.'compelled to divide the duties of maintenance strictly in accordance
q
with theirterritorial borders. They may reach some other accomodation.
occurred in the early 1960's. Since the record discloses no eviaence
of physical action in the six years prior to the commencement of this
action that was either intended to or sufficient to close the land
against the public use; the six -year requirement of 5 160.05, subd. 1,
was satisfied.
5. The trial court ruled that establishing a road pursuant to
f 160.05, subd. 1, constituted a taking of property that required
compensation. As a result plaintiff was awarded damages and Arago
Township was charged with costs incurred in fixing damages.
.The award of damages'was not warranted. Section 160.05, subd. 1,
provides no method by which government can take property. The statute,
rather, provides a substitute for the common-law creation of highways
by prescription or adverse use. Barfnecht v Town Board of Hollywood
Town h , 304 Minn. 505, 506, 232 N.W.2d 420, 422 (1975). During the
running of the six -year statute, the township and the public are
adverse users and, at any time during that period, the landowner
may seek damages for trespass, he may bar users from the property, or
he may force the township, if it wishes to continue to use his property,
to condemn it and pay compensation. After six years have passed,
however, he is estopped from asserting those rights. The township and
the public acquire rights not because they take them, but because the
landowner forfeits them by failing to act within the prescribed period.
Moreover, so long as a reasonable time and method exist for
obtaining compensation or other appropriate relief --and this is
supplied by the six -yeas term --an affected property owner has no,
complaint if his request for relief is held barred by long acquiescence
and lathes or by the running of a statute of limitations. Kaukauna Water
Poway Co v Green Bay 6 Miss• Canal Co., 142 U.S. 254, 290-91 (1891);
Jacobosky v.Town of Ahnapee, 244 Nis. 640, 646, 13 N.W.2d 72, 75
(1944). Sea also Rrambeck v. City of Gretna, 198 Web. 608,'614, 254
N.W.2d 691, 695 (1977).
6. Finally, in the alternative, plaintiff asked the trial court
to compel the vacation of the road under authority of Minn. Stet.
S 164.07 (1978). Section 164.07, subde. 1, 2, directs a town board
to act on petitions regarding township roads when they are signed by
eight voters of a specified class. Plaintiff's petition initially
O P I N I 0 N
OTIS, Justice. (Hon, John A, Spellacys District.Court Trial Judge)
Plaintiff Westby brings this action against Itasca County and
department of natural resources conservation officer Donald Claude claiming;t
damages for negligent maintenance of a highway. The trial court ruled that
Claude enjoyed sovereign immunity of the State of Minnesota, that he was
not an agent or employee of Itasca County, that even if he was an inde-
pendent contractor of the county, his negligence was collateral, and, con-
sequently,thatthe county could not be held vicariously liable for his acts.
The.jury found that Claude was 100 percent negligent and that the plaintiff
and the county were free from negligence. Plaintiff appeals on the grounds
-that the trial court's rulings on the agency and independent contractor
status of Claude were incorrect.
We reverse and order judgment for plaintiff.
Plaintiff Westby injured his lower back when his truck overturned as
a result of encountering a mud slick on Itasca County Highway Fourteen
near Bigfork, Minnesota. That condition was created approximately one
hour before the accident when a beaver dam located near the road was
destroyed by dynamite to prevent the erosion of the roadbed from water
backed up by the dam. In accordance with county practices extending back
at least twenty years, the blasting was handled by a department of natural
resources conservation officer, Donald Claude, at the request of a county
highway maintenance employee, Gene Gustafson.
The explosion was designed to blow debris horizontally over the road
to avoid -power lines which were located directly above the dam. Claude
and his son removed the larger pieces of debris from the road but most of
the slippery material remained on the highway. This hazardous condition
was not marked or flagged in any manner to warn drivers,and the county was
not notified of the hazard until after tF.:".accident.
1. Restatement (Second) of Agency 5 2 (1958) sets forth the relevant
rules&
An independent contractor is a person who contracts
with another to do something for him but who is not con-
trolled by the other nor subject to the other's right to
control with respect to his physical conduct in the per-
formance of the undertaking. He may or (nay not be an agent.
4..
FINANCE and COMMERCE
FRIDAY, JANUARY 4, 1880
included the required signatures.
However, before the board either
Moreover, the laws recognize that there are occasions where, for reasons
acted or was required to act by Minn. Stet. 5 164.07, aubd. 2 (1978),
of necessity or practicality, such roads do not lie
precisely on the
three signers requested that tiheiz
names be withdrawn. The town board
town line. In such circumstances the towns are not
precluded from
for that
of the town line
was'constrained to give these requests effect. In re Meyer
dividing the duties of maintenance portion
278 Minn. 20, 30, 152 H.W.2d 770,
784 (1967)1 Domeier v. Golling,
rosd.4
243 Minn. 237, 241, 67 H.W.2d 898;
901 (1954). Following these
4 When statutory language has left room, we have not required
town line. in Skrove v. Towns
withdrawals the petition contained
fewer than the required number of
such roads to rigidly conform to the
154 Minn. 118, 191 N.W.
584 (list), for
of Belmont and Christiania,
characterized as a town line road under
the existing
signatures and the township board was without authority to act.
example, we
statute, a road that varied as much as 500 feet from the actual
town line,
Likewise the district court had no
authority to intervene.
In the circumstances of this case, therefore, where the road -
departs only a short distance from the town line and is an extension
of a road lying on the town line, had that road already assumed the
character of a public road, the towns of Arago and Lake Emma.would
have had clear authority to enter an agreement allocating to Lake
Emma responsibility for maintaining the road. Consequently, mainten-
ance performed by Lake Emma pursuant to such an agreement was performed
by an appropriate agency of government within the meaning of Minn.
Stat. S 160.05, subd. 1 (1978).
4. Plaintiff also questions whether the required use and main-
tenance occurred over a continuous period.of six years. He urges that
he took physical action that stopped the.running of the period.
in Barfnecht v Town Board of Hollywood Township, 304 Minn. 535,
308, 232 N.W.2d 420, 423 (1975). we stated, 'if (the landowner) means
to dispute the rightfulness of the public use, he must assert his
rights within the statutory period by physical action or .suit.' In
so doing we restated the law set forth in Miller v. Town of Corinna,
42 Minn. 391, 392, 44 N.W. 127, 128 (1890), that the landowner can
stop the running of the statute 'by applying to the courts to have
the right of the public tested, or within that time he may close the
land against the public use.' Not all physical action will toll the
statute. The period is started anew only by action that 'Close(s) the
land against the public use.'
It is unnecessary to decide whether plaintiff's physical actions
were of the character necessary to start the statute running anew.
The award of damages and appraiser fees is reversed and the case
is remanded with directions to enter judgment for defendants.
MR. JUSTICE TODD took no part in the consideration or decision
of this case.
No. 347
Jerry L. Westby,
Appellant,
49222 vs.
Itasca County,
Respondent.
ITASCA COUNTY Ttie, J.
. Took no part,
Todd, J.
Edward J. Matonich, and Darrold
Persson, Attorneys, Hibbing
Russell A. Anderson, Attorney,
Bemld�i
S Y L L A B U S
1. A conservation officer who agreed to destroy a beaver dam at
the request of and on behalf of the county for purposes of road mainten-
ance held to be an independent contractor of the county.
2. Road maintenance held a non -delegable duty.
3. An independent contractor's failure to remove mud and debris
from a road after blasting a beaver dam for road maintenance purposes is
not collateral negligence which will relieve his principal, the county,
from liability.
The essential maintenance and use of the road began by 1962. Plaintiff Reversed and remanded.
waited more than fourteen years before filing suit against the town- Heazd before Otis, Rogosheske, and Wahl, JJ., and considered and
ships in November 1976. The physical actions relied on by plaintiff decided by the court an bane.
0
.1
and nutiuleuauee or a ItrcUrca;dc tuldl
truck trail for public use, slid not ac-
quire an interest by adverse posses-
sion, dedication, or user by the use of
the right-of-way for six years. Op.
Atty.Gen., July 2, 1952.
Former § 160.19 was based on prin-
elple of adverse possession and was
designed to settle forever litigation
concerning location of public roads.
Id.
Foruner § 160.19, relating to estab-
lishnteut of road by user, had no ap-
pilealion to street within city or vil-
lage by reason of former § 100.01. Op.
Atty.Gen., 396-C-4, Aug. 31, 1951.
former § 1G0.19 applied to streets in
village or other Incorporated nnulici-
pality. Op.Atty.Gen.1934, No. 489, p.
748.
A town road could be established by
filing a petition us provided by former
163.13, by dedication of land for road
purposes by owners thercor and an
acceptance of such dedication by town
under former § ]G:1.19, or by dedica-
Hu t by user as provided by former §
16o.19, but there was uo authority
whereby town could purchase outright
the necessary right of way for it town
road. Op.Atty.Geu.1932, No. 18-1, P.
2llti.
Former § 160.19 was uppllcable to
streets as well as roads. Op-Atty.
Gen., 39G-C-4, Oct. 12, 1932.
Before there could be it dedlcadoll
by user under former § 160.10, road
%vas required to have been used and
kept in repair and worked for at least
six years continuously as a public
highway. Op.Atty.Gen.1928, No. 217,
p. 207.
P:Ifcct of user of old road after al-
teratlon by county board discussed.
Id.
4. Retroactive operation
Laws 1899, c. 152, containing a pro-
visiuu like that set out lu former §
16o.19, was nut retroactive, and a
highway cstatblished by user hefore its
enactment was ]hinted to the chair-
acter and extent of the user. State v.
Mager, 1912, 119 Alina. 512, 138 N.W.
935.
1HU l)LUV1Z1V1M VL a.i,...'-r 4 i••—
as set out in substance 3u Laws 1877,
c. 50, (Geu.St.1878, e. 13, § 47), were
entirely prospective, and no acts done
or time elapsed before the passage of
the statute could be considered. State
v. Waholz, 1881, 28 Minn. 114, 9 N.W.
578.
5. Dedication —In general
Alaxhu that man was presunled to
intend usual and natural cousequeuces
or his acts, was applicable to dedica-
tions of roadways. Daugherty v.
Sowers, 1955, 2.13 Minn. 572, 68 N.W.
2d 866.
Acceptance of dedication of strip of
laud fur use as public highway by pub -
He may be shown by public user, as
by travel, or by acts of public oW-
cers in improving and maintaining the
road. Anderson v. Birkeland, 1949,
229 Minn. 77, 38 N.W.2d 215.
The intention of owner to set
apart it strip of land for use of public
as highway was foundation of com-
nton-law dedication, and any act of
owner, or of any person acting for
hint with his knowledge and consent,
front which till Intention may be un-
equivocally Inferred, was sullicient
to constitute a common-law dedica-
tion. Id.
The evidence sustained the lludings
that It road by prescription had been
established on the boundary line be-
tween the farms of the parties to the
action, by their joint use thereof dur-
ing it period of almost 50 years, which
became appurtenant to each farm and
every part thereof. hence, by con-
veying by deed of warrauty part of
the land over which the road was laid
without reservation or exception, the
grantor did not relinquish the eftse-
ment where It appeared that he re-
mulned the owner of the balance of
the farut to which It wits also appur-
tenant. Sorkil v. Strom, 1923, 156
Minn. 155, 104 N.W. 333.
A road or it street could be dedi-
cated by statutory user pursuant to
Minnesota Statutes 1915, § 160.19 (see
now section 160.05) despite title regis-
tration proceedings had taken place
during the time of the construction of
the road, and there would be no con-
42
nlec bettveen AI!unesota Statutes
1945, § 160.19, and § 508.02. Op.Atty.
Gen., 3969-4, July 23, 1959.
Where land was dedicated for road
Purposes "for enough to get a good
track," facts were too uncertain to
conclude that a four rod road was es-
tablished by user and proper pro-
cedure was for town to proceed to
establish it road. Op-Atty.Gen., 377-
A-1, Julie 7, 1948.
6. — Nature and requisites of
dedication
A way may be dedicated as a pub-
lic highway, evell though it is a eul-
de-sac, Kciter V. Berge, 1945, 219
Aliun. 374, 18 NAV.2d 35; Daugherty
i.; v. Sowers, 1955, 243 Minn. 5?l, 68 N.
W.2d 866.
Although there could be no dedlea-.
tion of roadway without landowner's
Intent, such requisite intent need not
be expressed, and in fact need not ac-
tually exist in owner's mind, but
might be implied from acts and con-
duct of owner which were unequlvo-
E_ tally and convincingly indicative of
is dedication and upon which public bad
k, right to and did rely. Daugherty v.
Sowers, 1955, 243 Minn. 572, 08 N.W.
F 2d 860.
Dedication of rondwny rests upon
Intent and not upon prescription. Id.
Essentials of common law dedica-
tion of roadway are laudowner's in-
tent, express or implied, to have his
land appropriated and devoted to pub-
lic use, and acceptance of that use by
Public. Id.
The public may rely on that which
landowner has done as Indicative of
his Intent, and if his conduct has been
"'lull as to Icad all ordinarily discreet
man to Infer Intention to make dedica-
tion of strip of Innd as Public high-
way, and the Public rely upon such
acts as a dedication and may accept
It for Public use and use It as a public
road, the dedication becomes complete
and cannot be recalled by owner. An-
derson v. Birkeland, 1949, 229 Minn.
77, 38 N.W.2d 215.
Although intention of landowner to
dedicate strip of land as public high-
way must appear to exist as requisite
43
for common law dedication, it need
not always exist In fact in mind of
landowner, but may be ascertained
from acts on his part which unequivo-
cally carry with them the plain im-
plIcation of Intention to dedicate a
road to public use. Id.
"Dedication" is not based on "es-
toppel", but it is of itself it distinctive
couuuou-law doctrine and Is compre-
hensible without reference to latter,
although essential elements of latter
may be present in a given case, and if
for continuous period of at least six
years a roadway has been used
ublic and, In addition thereto, has
1�'Cll \VOt'kCd III d Iien anal as
public hlg sway under authority and
expense of government, roadway is
thereby dedicated and accepted as
a public highway. Id.
The basic element of dedication of
roadway as public highway is owner's
Intent and not public use for period
of prescription, and when that intent
Is clearly manifested the dedication
against owner lmconles effectivp and
lrrevnenbin na f__F
softie enser of ualtder ,ee and charac c
'�"11c acccn)
once, and sue] user to be effective
need not exlst fur filly detlulle length
of time. Id.
Landowner's act, In having gravel
Put on roadway over his land used by
Public to be used In lnlprovhtg road-
way and flttlng It for travel, was an
act in furtherance of such public use
as it basis for Inference that landown-
er intended to dedleate roadway to
public use. Kelter v. Berge, 1945, 219
Minn. 374, 18 N.W.2d 35.
Landowner, by cous(ructlug )few
road Its a substitute for part of road.
way over bis land which he closed to
Public use, recognized vulldity of pub-
lic's clalul to the roadway as basis for
Inference- that landowner intended to
dedicate roadway to public use. Id.
To constitute a common-law dedlca-
tion of a roadway there must be an
approprlatlon or surrender by the
owner to public use and an acceptance
by the public. It may be express, or
implied as a fact from attendant cir-
cumstances. Jungels V. SChramel,
1924, 158 Minn. 93, 197 N.W. 99. ,
.haver ovur ruatmy y ,......... ---
it ot adverse turd does not ripen into
Su public right. Op.Atty.Gen., 390-G1,
L Dec. 15, 1955.
7. - Time required
Beyond bare necessity of sulfieient
user of roadway to nnauifest accept-
unce by public, icngtb of time of user
beconnes important: only as it nmy be
a significant evidentiary factor in es-
tablishing or corroborating owner's
dedicatory intent. Anderson v. Birke-
land, 1949, 229 Minn. 77, 38 N.W.2d
215.
A dedication rests upon assent and
not upon prescription and does not dc-
peud upon length of tinie road wits
used for public purposes, the tinne ele-
ulent being important only where fact
of dedication rests upon inference,
but public use need not be for tine pe-
riod of the statute ill order to war-
rant inference of dedication. Keiter
v. Berge, 1045, 219 Minn. 374, 18 N.
W2d 35.
A road established pursuant to the
statute beconnes a public road uponn
expiration of six years, and if a road
is established by couonon-law dedica
tlol there is no definite tine at which
the road so established becomes pub-
lic and owner of the fee becomes di-
vested of his rights. Op.Atty.Gen.,
377-A-4, Aug. 26, 1935.
8. -- Effect of dedication
Interruption of public use of road-
way across private land by installing
a gate thereon and absence of adverse
use thereafter for the period of the
Statute were humaterial if roadway
wits dedicated to It public use. '{enter
v. Berge, 1945, 219 Minn. 374,18 N.W.
2d 35.
Action for trespass could not be
maintained against abutting landown-
er for cutting trees wit.hiu the tight
of way of It town road dedicated Uy
user. Op.Atty.Gen., 377-A-4, Aug. 2,
1956.
9. - Revocation
Where landowner's dedication of
road is accepted by public, dedication
cation. Ditogberty V. Sowers,
243 Minn. 572, 08 N.W.Zd 866.
The public may rely on that which
landowner has clone as indicative of
Ills intent, and if his conduct has been
such as to lead all ordinarily discreet
Inn n.to infer intention to make dedica-
tion of strip of ]and as public high-
way, nud the pnblle rely upon Such
acts as a deification and may aeeept
It for public use and use it as a pill) -
lie road, the dedication becolucs conn-
plete and cannot be recalled by own-
er. Anderson v. Birkelaud, 19-19, 229
Minn. 77, 38 N.W2d 215.
A dedicator of a public highway
could not revoke the dedication by at-
tempted substitution of another high-
way without the consent of the pub-
lic. I:eiter v. Berge, 1945, 219 Alien.
( 374, 18 N. W.2d 35.
10. — Acts preventing dedication
Whore the owner of laud abutting
of a high -way had constructed a fence
encroaching of land which wits subse-
quently clainned to have been deill-
cated to the public as a part of the
highway, and the fence was substan-
tially maintained for over 20 years,
though for a ininiber of years a por-
tion thereof had been removed or
taken down, and such land was never
used for the purposes of travel, but
had always been in the plaintiff's
possession, nud he had planted trees
thereon, and Soule of his buildings en-
croached oil the land, and iu response
to his request for a sidewalk along the
line the authorities lend constructed
a fence along the line as claimed by
hint, the evidence was not suliicieut to
show a dedication. 1l111-ley V. City of
\Vest St. Paul, 1901, 83 Minn. 401, 86
N.W. 427.
If landowner whose land was used
by the public Its a cutof becnnse it
river crossed a section road can show
that he orally protested directly to
town board 30 years ago as to use of
such cutoff by the public, it would
constitute additional proof but not
conclusive that owner never assented
to use of such toad by the public.
Op.Atty.Gen., 379-A-2, May 3, 1940.
44
To show establishuneut� of public
highway by user, it is not necessary
that every portion of road should be
worked at expense of government, nor
that any part should receive attention
every year during six -year period.
Anderson v. Birkeland, 19-19, 229
Minn. 77, 38 NAV.2d 215.
1Vhile highway must be shown to
have been used by public and kept in
repair thereby at public exlwnse for
six years in order to establish public
highway by statutory user, the public
need not keep road in repair in oilder
to establish conuno. law dedication
thereof as highway. Bosell v. ltanne-
stad, 1948, 220 Minn. 413, 33 N.NV.2d
40.
Aceeptance
w by the public of com-
mon-ladedication of it highway may
be inferred front fact of common user
by the public or Pratt acts of public
olliccrs in improving and maintaining
highway, but expenditure of public
funds for improving and maintaining
it as a highway is not necessary.
Kelter v. Berge, 1945, 219 Minn. 374,
18 N.W.2d 35.
The fact that public officials In city
had ivade no repairs of alleyway lo-
cated on landowner's ]and wits imina-
terial in determining question wheth-
er there had been a conunon-law dedi-
cation of the alleyway to the public
by the landowner. Dickinson v.
Ruble, 1942, 211 Minn. 373, 1 N.W.2d
373.
The keeping in repair and working
of a road for six years, which to-
gether with user was required by
former § 160.19, was required to be
done under the authority and at the
expense of the government, function-
ing through an appropriate agency.
Whiteley V. Strickler, 19'_4, 159 Mien.
145, 198 NAV. 420.
To establish a public highway un-
der former § 100.19, the road niust
have been traveled by the public and
have Ucen worked for the prescribed
Six-yer• aperiod, but it was not neces.
sitry that every portion of such road
should have been worked, or that tiny
part should have received attention
every year. Town of Wells v. Sulll-
45
244.
In order to establish a public high-
way by adverse user under foruwr §
160.19, mere use for public travel for
six years was insufficient, and work
or repairs on the highway at least six
Years before the contest also was
required to be shown. A1lniteapolis
Brewing Co. v. City of Nast Grand
Forks, 1912, 118 Minn. l07, 136 N.W.
1103.
The work required to establish a
highway by statutory dedication Is
only such as may be necessary, tak-
ing into account the natural condition
of the roadbed; and heuce town au-
thorilles cannot be enjoined from Im-
proving a road which has been used
since 1888, and has been continuously
traveled and worked sufficiently to
keep it in proper condition. Ilansen
v. Town of Verdi, 1901, 83 Minn. 44,
85 N.W. 906, following Miller v. Town
of Corinna, 42 Minn. 391, 44 N.W. 127,
and Rogers v. Town of Aitkin, 77
Minn. 539, 80 N.W. 702.
Town board has Sallie duties and ob-
llgations in regard to maintenance and
repair of a road established by user
as it has in regard to any other town
road. Op.Atty.Gen., 377-A-4, June 17,
1957.
Where road over private land used
by the public to go to and front ath-
letic field at state teachers college was
not used and kept in repair and
worked for at least six years coutiau-
ously as a public highway, state teach-
ers college board did not have an ease-
nieut over the road. Op.Atty.Gcu.,
390-C-4, Dec. 15, 1955.
A road along shore of a lake which
has shifted front tithe to time because
of growth of brush turd because of
wet weather, upon which to puhile
money was spent for repairs or maht-
tenance, Is not a public road. Op.
Atty.Gen., 371-A-2, Sept. 30, 1032.
12. Width of road
When a roadway is acquired Uy
user its width, it the absence of stat-
ute, Is measured by the user.
Schrack v. Hennepin County, 1920,
146 Alinn. 171,- 178 N.W. 484.
When it is evident that further im-
provements will have to be made for
the safety and convenience of travel-
ers and they become reasonably neces-
sary to a roadway acquired by user,
the public is entitled to the use of
land outside the traveled way. Id.
Laws 1899, c. 152, was nbt retro-
active, and a highway established by
user before its enactment Is limited
to the extent of the user. State v.
Ilager, 1912, 119 Alinn. 512, 138 N.W.
935.
The clause Introduced into this stat-
ute by Laws 1899, P. 155, C. 152, pro-
viding that the road shall be deemed
dedicated to the width of two rods on
each side of the center line, does not
apply to established highways by user
before the act took effect. Gilbert v.
Village of White Bear, 1909, 107 Alinn.
239, 119 N.W. 1063.
A public highway acquired by ad-
verse user was not necessarily limited
to a track made by passing vehicles,
but its -width was to be determined as
a question of fact by the extent of
user. Arndt v. Thomas, 19041 93
Alinn. 1, 100 N.W. 378, 106 Am.St.ltep.
418, 2 Ann.Cas. 972.
The forerunner of this section, Gen.
St.1878, c. 13, § 47, which also con-
tained some of the provisions now
found lit § 160.02, did not limit the
width of roads acquired by adverse
user for six years, but only limited
the width of roads laid out by the
county authorities. Marchand V.
Town of Alaple Grove, 1892, -18 Alinn.
271, 51 N.W. 606.
Where a public highway was ob-
tained solely by adverse user under
tho foruter statute, Its width was to
be measured and determined, as a
question of filet, by the charneter and
extent of the user. It was not nec-
essarily conliued to the track made by
passing vehicles, but might include
such adjacent land its might be need-
ed for ordinary repairs and Improve-
ments. Id.
Where It cartway two rods wide
had been established under former
§ ]G3.15, town could rely on former
§ 160.10 for authority to improve the
road to It width of four.rods over.ob-
jection of adjoining property owners
since former § 160.19 applied to road
dedicated by user, not established
roads. Op.Atty.Gen., 1950, No. 112,
P. 196.
If town road was established by
user, it was four rods wide under
the statute. Op.Atty.Geu., 377-A-1,
April 17, 1947. ,
A two -rod road, bought and paid
for by township as a two -rod road
about 20 years ago and used by pub-
lic ever slake, may become a four -
rod right of way by user. Op.Atty.
Gen., 377-A-4, Sept. 18, 1041.
This section does not require that
all streets be four rods In width, but
will apply where street is actually
open to use and kept in repair for at
least six. continuous years to this
width, regardless of any plat which
may have been made concerning
streets in village:; which are desig-
nitted as trunk highways. Op.Atty.
Gen.1931, No. 489, p. 748.
Where a vote to establish cartway
two rods wide under former § 1G3.13,
was ineffective because order was
never filed, fact that subsequently for
over six years cartway one rat in
width was worked and kept in repair
did not establish a legal cartway by
dedication under former § 160.19,
since cartway by dedication could be
established only by using to the width
of four rods. Op.Atty.Gen.1934, No.
214, p. 404.
A road established by user is
deemed dedicated .to the public to
the width of two rods on each side .
of the center line. Op.Atty.Gen.,
2.73-A-1, Alag. 27, 3031.
The, statute applles only to roads
that have become public highways by
user subsequent to April 11, 1899, on
which date the statute was approved.
Op.Atty.Cen., 377-B-1, Aug. 18, 1927.
That public travel may deviate
slightly from line of established high-
way does not necessarily result In
mating of lands outside of limits of
right of way it public highway by
user. Op.Atty.Gela., 379-A-2, March
16, 1027. .. .. . .
46.
A highway established by user un-
der the statute is four rods wide and
town board may open it to a width
of two rods on each side of center
line, but if the road became estab-
lished by user for period of six years
prior to April 11, 1899, statute does
not apply and in such case width Is
measured by extent of the use. Op.
.kt.ty.Gen., 379-0-13-B, June 7, 1026.
13. Establishment of highway, by
public authorities
The former statute rebated to es-
tablishment of roads by user and not
to roads or streets laid out by order
of town board or village or city coun-
cil. Op.Atty.Gen., 377-A-4, Nov. 2,
193G ; Op.Atty.Geu., 377-B-10, June
26, 1939.
The former § 160.10 was applicable
to streets as well as roads but did
iiot apply where road or street had
in been in fact laid out by public au-
thority and the work and mainte-
nance consisted of maintaining and
improving the established road or
street. Op.Atty.Gen., 39G-0-4, June
-9, 1932.
14. Defective or Incomplete proceed-
ings to establish highway ,
La 1881, the town supervisors at-
tempted to lay .out the highway in
question, but the record of their acts
was defective. Immediately follow-
ing such attempt, the road was sur-
veyed and opened, and has ever ,since
been known, and continually used
and traveled, as a public highway,
and public work has been expended
thereon when necessary. held suRi-
cient to show that the highway was
established by a statutory user. Rog-
ers v. 'Town of Altldn, 1899, 77 Minn.
Nil), 80 N.W. 702.
The operation of the former stat-
ute, as unleaded by Laws 1879, e. 51,
wasnot affected by the fact that
Proceedings previously commenced to
lay out the road In question as a
highway were still pending. inrelt v.
Stillwater St. 1t. Co., 1893, 53 Alinn.
68, 55 N.W. 116.
A deed bounded the land conveyed
thereby by a certain road, giving the
name by which it was known, there.
47
being actually such a road by dedi-
cation and user. held, that the deed
was not notice of the lines of a road,
differing from those of the dedicated
road, which had been attempted to
be laid out, but was not legally laid
out. Prescott v. Beyer, 1886, 34 Minu.
493, 26 N.W. 732.
15. County line roads
Where two towns situated In ad-
joining counties established a road
between such towns on it county line,
even though such road was )lot es-
tablished in compliance with former
§ 162.20 by judicial proceedings, It
became a legally established highway
by user under former § 160.19, if it
had been used and kept in repair and
worked for at least six years continu-
ously as a public highway, and the
town boards of the two towns could
continue to maintain and keep such
road in repair. Op.Atty.Gen.1038, No.
267, p. 406.
16. Section line roads
It is common knowledge that., ex-
cept under special circumstances,
newly established roads and cartways
In rural areas are, wherever practica-
ble, located on section or subsection
lines and on the line between the
Binds of adjoining owners, rather
than across lands of one of them.
Friede v. Pool, 1944, 217 Minn. 332,
14 N.W.2d 454.
A deviation of travel on a public
road, beyond the four -rod limit, held
not such notice to landowners as
would set in motion this six -year
statute of limitations, where the
travel was with reference to the fact•
that the legal highway hay bceu lnld
Out oft the section line. A1cCasland
Y. Walworth Tp., Becker County,
1016, 132 Allan. 460, 157 N.W. 715.
Where it strip of .laud has been
claimed to be a highway by statutory
user, under Gen.St.189.1, § 1832, and
all provisions of the statute as to
use have been compiled with it is a
legal highway, though the landown-
er and fate, public authorities may
have been mistaken as to the true lo-
cation of a section line whlcli they
believe to have been the center of
�..... ... },... .aJ. OI U,Yul V. 1U%Vn uL CtT
tcrsburg, 1900, 99 Minn. 450, 109 N.
IV. 810.
Li an action for damages for tres-
pass on realty, the defense was that
the locus in quo was at public high- `
way. A petition had been prescufed 1
30 years previous to file trespass for
the location of :t highway ou a sec-
tion lice, and Ilse petition was grant-
ed and the highway laid out. A con-
troversy subsequently arose as to the
true section line, and as to whether
the highway had been located there-
on; and a petition for a new loca-
tion was presented, and the rond laid
out, and defendants undertook to
open and improve the road, when the
action of trespass was brought
against them. Hold, that a coutea-
don that the former road was tit -
tended to be located on the section
line, and'was so understood by all
parties, aand, having been used for 30
years, there Nvaas a practical location
or the section line, by which the pub-
lic and all parties were bound, cull-
not be sustained, where there was
nothing to show that the former
highway was in fact laid out on the
section line, or on wlint was then
understood to be such.- Thompson v.
Trowe, 1001, 82 Minn. 471, 85 NAV.
109.
Where section line roads estab-
lished Lu township, ill order to avoid
natural obstacles, deviated from es-
tablished right of way line, allot sonne
of roads had been graded for several
years at expense of township and
others at 'to time had lord public
funds expended thereon, ]it some in-
stautces fences had been built, trees
planted, and ordinary acts or owuee-
shlp performed by adjoining owners
within original rights of ivuy of
roads, and traveled highways did not
follow Such rights of way, there were..
legal roads to extent of two rods oil
each side of the center line or the
traveled way, where such way had
been traveled for at least six years
and public funds for construction
and luaiuteauuice thereor had been
expended thereon under tills section,
but Uac orighual deslgnMed rights of
way along secllon lilacs Properly es-
tablished remained public property
48
iur iugitway purposes, unless public
title thereto had been divested by ad-
verse possession which ripened into
title before 1899, In view of § 541.01.
01).ALty.Geu.1930, No. 286, p. 255.
Where county road had been es-
tablished along a section line but
traveled portion had deviated front
section line, the traveled way was
not a road established by user with-
in this section, but Its existence and
use were referable to fact that there
was a road established along tine sec-
tion line though the same had not
been opened for public travel and
the use of the present traveled road
away from the section line did not
constitute an abandonment of the le-
gally established section line road.
Op.Atty.Gen., G43-F, July 21, 1930.
17. Obstruction of road
In determining whether plaintiff
exercised ordinary care in attennpt-
iug to travel a highway known to.
lilm to be partially obstructaxl, evi-
dence that there was no other road
by which he could reach his desti-
nation is competent. Skjeggerud v.
Minneapolis & St. L. R. Co., 1887, 3&
Minn. 56, 35 N.N. 572.
A person causing obstruction on
township road may be prosecuted, or
township may bring Injunction pro-
cecdiug against landowner, who may
be restrained from maintaining the
olast:rnctlon and front Interfering with
the township or Its agents who are to.
widen the road. Op.Atty.Gen., 377-
A-5, Aug. 14, 19-10.
18. vacation of road
SInce tender former §§ 160.01 and
163.18, "town road" includes cart
ways fund highways by user, town
board could, under former § 160.19,
vacate tiny road or the classes men-
tioned. Op.ALty.Gen., 378-A, Ala rch.
7, 19'_J.
19. User of road .1-101
Public user of roadway may be -
established by Comparatively squall
nunnber of persons. Daugherty v.
Sowers, 1955, 2J3 Itllnu. 57d, Obi N. V.
2d 866.
The right of travel by all tine
world a (I not the exercise of the
right constitutes a road a "public
highway", fund user by public is suf-
ficient if those members of public,
who would naturally be expected to
enjoy it, do or have done so, at their
pleasure and convenience, even
though they be limited in number
and even if some are accotnrnodated
more than others: Anderson V. Birke
land, 1949, 220 Minn. 77, 38 N.W.2d
215.
A public user of a road may be es-
tablished by comparatively small
number of persons who during suiti-
mer season have occasion to take such
road to Lakeshore for recreation or
Other purposes. Id.
20. Plats
If plat, certificates and title to
Property dedicated oil plat as it road
are in proper order, county board has
discretion with respect to approval or
disapproval of plat presented to it.
Op.Atty.Ccu., 18-D, March 7, 1051.
21. Railroads
Former § 160.20 relating to legal
highway, was inapplicable In deter-
utitiinig whether motorist, entering
street front road partly on and paral-
lel to rallway coutpaay's property
nticd only for storage purposeswas
on private roadway, so as t,
o require
hint to yield right of way to auto-
mobile approaching on street. Ilosell
v, ltannestad, 19-18, 226 Aliml. 413, 33
N.\V.2d 40.
The Commissioner of highways de-
terailines anal designates the land re-
quired for right of way, and "land"
Includes all easements or rights grow-
ing out Of such land. Petition of
12 M.S.A.-4
49
It Is right of travel by all the world, Burnqulst, 1945, 220 Minn. 4Note 22-
8, 10 N.
and not exercise of right, which con- IV.2d 394.
stitutes road a public highway and
user by public is sufficient if those A railway company ]aid its ti%icic
members of public even though they over it street used as a highway, but
be limited in number and even If not legally laid out, and the public -
Soule are accommodaated more than thereafter used the crossing for
others, wino would naturally be ex- years, without objection by tilt. conn-
pectcd to enjoy it do, or have done so, Pany, which, on the contrary, kelit: it
at their pleasure and convenience. In repair, and planl.ed it, aand built
Id, cattle guards. IIetd silincieut evi-
dence of a dedication. c,, Paul, Af.
& M. R. Co. V. City of 11111ineapolis,.
1890, 44 AIInn. 149, 40 N.W. 324.
Village could lay water main across
a railroad crossing with or without
consent of rallroad, where road which
crossed tracks was a continuation of
street in village and had been used by
public as a public road or highway
since 1872, and if railroad property
was benefited by improveiifent, it.
could be assessed therefor. Op.rltty.
Geu., 1950, No. 172, P. 308.
Where railroad had purchased a
right of way and thert.:nfter pur-
Chatsed additional 150 feet oil each
side thereof and a depot was built oil
the right of way and village existed
opposite therefrom, the fornu�r stat-
ute prohibited public frown acqulring
any highway easements is such right
Of way. Op.Atty.Gen., 377-1). Dec.
19, 1939.
22. Evidence
Where evidence is coufllcting as to
whether owner Intended to nutke dedl-
catkn► of roadway and whether puh-
lie accepted dedle"Hon, gnestiota IS
pecullarly one of fact for trier of
fact. Daugherty v. Sowers, 1955, 2.13
Minn. 572, 68 N.W.2d 500.
Although intention of landowner
to dedicate strip or hand as pnbllc
highway must appear to exist ass
regnislte for comunon lane dedication,
It need not always exist in fact in
mind of landowner, but may be as-
certained front acts on his part which
unequivocably carry with them the
plait implication of inlcnilo❑ to dedi.
cute n. road to public use. Anderson
v. Ilil-keland, 1949, 229 Allun. 77, 38
N.W.2d 215.
In ejectment against a city for a
Portion of a public street, wider an
Nbto 22
averment in the answer that for 20
years defendant "has been in pos-
session of the property, and has im-
proved and used the same as :1 pula-
lie street," evidence is admissible
that defendant "used and kept in re-
pair and worked" Life street for 6
Years. Ifall V. City Of 'St. Paul, 189-1,
56 Minn. 428, 57 N.W. 928.
On the question as to whether land
has been dedicated for a public high-
way, evidence is aduai:;Sible to show
that it was for the Interest of the
owner to have a highway at the locus
in quo, and that he had petitioned
for it, and had signed a remonstrance
against a change in its location.
Ellsworth v. Lord, 1889, 40 Minn. 337,
42 N.W. 389.
23. — Burden of proof
In trespass for the removing of it
fence, where defendant pleaded that
the fence was in the highway, and
that he removed it under ]its author-
ity as a public officer, and plaintiff
made a prinut facie case showing the
fence upon his land, it was error to
dismiss the action at the close of
plaintiff's case; the burden being up-
on defendant. Danielson v. Kyl-
lonen, 1910, 111 Minn. 47, 126 N.W.
•104.
24. — Sufficiency of evidence
In action to enjoin defendants from
obstructing roadway alleged to have
been established by common law dedi-
cation, evidence was sufficient to sus-
tain trial court's finding of owner's
assent to appropriation and also ac-
ceptance of dedication by both public
authority and public Itself by way of
user. Daugherty v. Sowers, 1955, 243
Minn. 572, 68 N.W.2d 866.
Evidence that defendant and pred-
ecessor fit title acquiesced ]n use by
public of cartway over their land for
about 60 years, that defendant in cul-
tivating fields protected cartway by
lifting plow across it, that lie fur-
thered public use by arranging to
have grave] put on road.to be used
in improving It, and that lie recog-
nized validity of public's clalin to
roadway by constructing a new road
as a substitute for part of cartway
50
which be closed, sustained finding of
dedication of cartway. Keifer v.
Berge, 1945, 219 AI]nn. 374, 18 N.W.2d
35.
Evidence was sufficient to esUth-
lisla cannnou-law dedication of pub-
lic roadway between separate tracts
of hued. Metalak Y. Rasmussen, 1931,
18-1 Minn. 260; 238 N.W. 478.
Evidence established a public road
by common-law dedication, in that
such road had not been abandoned.
IIopkins v. Dahl, 1931, 183 Minn. 393,
236 N.W. 706.
The evidence did not sustain the
finding that there was a common-law
dedication of a highway. Jungels v.
Schraniel, 1024, 158 Minn. 93, 197
N.W. 99.
In proceeding by plaintiff town to
compel defendant town to contribute
to expenses of repairing bridge be-
tween the towns, evidence showed
that road between towns was public
highway by user. Town of Alt.
Pleasant v. Town of Florence, 191.7,
138 Minn. 359, 165 N.W. 126.
Evidence in an action to enjoin the
obstruction of a road showed estab-
lishment of the road as it public high-
way by user. Town of Wells v.
Sullivan, 1914, 125 Minn. 353, 147
N.W. 244.
In nit action to enjoin defendant
township from constructing a high-
way over land owned by plaintiff,
evidence justified a judgment for
plaintiff ail the ground that no road
or portion thereof had been used or
kept in repair and worked for six
years continuously as a public high-
way along it section line over plain-
tiff's land where it was claimed to
exist, and that there was no public
road on such ]tile or any part there-
of. Orth v. Norfolk Tp., 1913, 120
Minn. 530, 139 N.W. 1134.
Evidence justified an injunction at
the suit of a private property owner
against the town authorities who
were attempting to lay out it public
highway over the owner's land, on
the ground that there was not at any
thne a public highway upon such
land. Kulkbrenner v. Town of Au-
gusta, 1911, 115 Minn. 538, 132 N.W.
1134.
Evidence did not show that a
highway by user had become estab-
lished at the cumnieucen,ent of an ac-
tion at law to lay out a road. Town
of Great Scott v. ltobiasun, 1911, 115
Minn. 247,132 N.W. 204.
In an action for obstructing a pub-
lic highway, evidence was hisuflicient
to show that the place was a public
highway. Town of Bellevue v. Ilun-
ter, 1908, 105 Minn. 313, 117 N.W.
4,15.
Evidence showed that the place of
an alleged trespass was it public high-,
way by both a common-law and stat-
utory dedication thereof. Jeppson v.
Ahnquist, 1905, 94 Mi,ui. 403, 103 N.
W. 10.
,In an action for trespass to realty,
where the material controversy was
the existence of a highway, and the
evidence was conflicting, a finding
that there was no highway where
defendants were alleged to have tres-
passed held supported by the evi-
dence. Arndt v. Thomas, 1003, 90
Minn. 355, 96 N.W. 1125.
25. Questions for Jury
Where evidence is in conflict as to
whether owner intended to dedicate
roadway over his land as a public
highway and whether public accepted
dedication, ultimate question of dedi-
cation is peculiarly one for the find-
er of facts. Keiter v. Berge, 1945,
219 Minn. 374,18 N.W.2d 35.
In action for damages for entering
on plaintiff's property along a high-
way and removing earth and trees,
1t was a question for the jury wheth-
er defendant county, in improving a
roadway acquired by user so that
traveled surface was of a definite
and uniform width, with ditches
draining It and a j)ruper grade to
meet a connecting road system, used
more of plaintiff's land than, was rea-
sonably necessary. Schrock V. llen-
ncpin County, 1920, 146 Minn. 171,
178 N.11' 484.
The evidence showed Mat, fron1t
the time defendant's railroad was
built, there had been a public high-
way running at right .angle, to de-
fendant's tracks; that soon after the
road was built, the public put sane
plank at the crossing, so as to en-
able travel to pass; that defcnd:unt
took this up and put down new nlanlc
crossings, which it thcrcaftcr nlain-
tatned at its own expense; that these
crossings were on a line with each
Other, and together with the higIlxvay
Oil each side made one continain,is
line for travel; that the road, irnclud-
ing these crossings, was exieasively
traveled by the public wilhont objec-
tion from defendant; and that this
was the only crossing in the neigh-
borhood. IIeld, that the question of
dedication by defendant company of
a highway across its tracks was one
of fact for the jury. Skjeggcrud v.
Minneapolls & St. L. It. Co., 1S87, 38
Minn. 56, 35 N.W. 572.
Whether a road has been kept in
repair and worked for at least six
Years continuously as a public high-
way is a question of fact. Op.Atty.
Gen., 373-C-13-B, July 12, 1935.
160.051 Repealed. Laws 1959, c. 500, art. 6, § 13
History and Source of Law
This section, derived from Laws 1957, c. 943, § 6, related to the width of high-
way bridges over railroad tracks. See, now, § 165.06.
160.06 Trail or portage dedication
. Any trail or portage between public or navigable bodies of
water or. from public or navigable water to a public highway in
this state which has been in continued and uninterrupted use by
51
Subd. 9. Road authority, "Road authority" means the comn►fssfoner, as
to trunk highways; the .county board, its to county state -aid highways
and comity highways; the town hoard us to town roads; turd the governing
1)odles of cities when the gov ruing bodies or city, streets are specifically men-
tioned.
Inn rn •►rued and kept In repair and worked for ttC least MIX years coarntr+vumlj
its a public'highwity,, tile,;iiiui�i i' i►ull 11G.`dl��lgcd dpdiente�l to the' public
to thr. 'width • •nf rtwo:' rotlit oii'+ enchi sided of J tile: Ceutan: lilie thereof trod bu
''ever- heen established' m0a,
[Sec main volitive for text of subda.,10 and 11]
Subd. 12. Controlled access highway. ."Controlled access highway" means
tiny highway, street, or road, including streets 'within cities over, front, or
to which owners or occmpants of abutting land or other per•son>,s have or are
to have no right of access, or only"a con troll ed'right 'of ,the easement of ac-
cess, light, air, or view.
Subd. 13. Public property. "Public property" means any property ex-
cept streets, roads, or bridges owned by tiny subdivision of government, in-
cluding but not limited. to, the property' of school idlstricts however organ -
]Zell, towns, cities, nuullclpallties, countles, and any board or commission
of tiny .thereof, and pmhlic corporations created by this laws of this state.
Amended by Laws 1973, c. 123, art. 5, $ 7; Lutes 1976, c. 2, 172 ; Laws 1976,
'9i�'� ,.i.r�l.,l:y ;E'7 J,�f 1'ir •":..`.. •.. -... I.'f. I -�+: •. '.. ,•.1. 1. .:., � l.n ;
_g1,19731Amendment. ,-Lawsl1973. c. 123. eludes" certain roads,as town roads and
art.; 5. 1.7, was a general .authority per- use of'word "Includes" Indicates leglsla-
mltting the consolidation of; the terms tive Intent that statute does not provide
!tvillages" . and "boroughs" - Into, the exclusive statement of every procedure
term "cities" or:the substitution of the that, may possibly he employed to'attaln
term >"statutory, cities" for , "villages" status. of town road and, thus,, roads
and for "boroughs.": - • , • may be .established as "town roads"
1976 Amendments.; Laws -1976, c.' 2, 4 through:a procedure not enumerated in
172 substituted references to the consti- statute. Jrl •re Maintenance of Road
tution. Laws 197G, c. 166, 4 7 substitut- Areas Shown .on flat of Suburban Es-
ed commissioner of transportation for tates. 1977. 250 N.W.2d 827.•
commissioner of highways. . Any' attempt to differentiate between
' a "public road" and a "town road" op-
,erates to Improperly construe the more
Supplementary_Iudex,to Notes incluslve',lerm "described town road" as
used In statute giving county board jur-
Public property" 11 " ' u :Isdietlomover complaints as to construc-
tion or. maintenance of a "described
town`road" and any such'subtle distinc-
2. Road or highway } t .,: ,:n +.tlon would be rejected. Id.
It Is the right of travel by all the Under this section and 4 160.13 It Is
world, and not the exercise of the right, the town,,board and not the electors
which constitutes a road a public high- that 'have ''the authority to light town
way, Quist v. Fuller, 1974, .300 Minn, roads. Op.Atty.Gen., 396f-2, Aug. 1
365, 22u N.W.2d 29G, 1960- ' " .
County board would he authorized to,. 11. Public property„
construct bridges In places that 'they!,' Statute giving broad power to co+n
deemed: necessary, and could require a,:) mr issione. of • highways to acqulre by -
right of way for a bridge over a private eminent domain , proceeding , all .. land
channel, constructed by a landowner "and property necessary to Improvement
with the consent of the commissioner of highway trunk system gave com-
af conservation. Op.Atty.Gen., 377a-1, t inissioner right to . appropriate- lands
April 17, 1962. already devoted to public use. State
7. Town roads 1, rn; bylHead'v: Christopher, 1969. 284 Minn.
' Definition In Subd. 6 of. "town .roads" 233. 170:N.W.2d 95, certiorari denied 90
Is not all-inclusive-, rather, statute "In. S Gtt.i 6T0 396 U.S. 1011, 24 L.):d.2d 602.
160.03 Compensatlon for publlo property
aw �Review Commentaries 1. In' general Advance land acquisition. June 1968, Compensation need not be paid .for
1 62 Minn.Law Review 1175. damage caused by relocation of a high-
Rights of abutting, property owners way to a new right-of-way which ve-
to freeway access. William Mitchell, sults In a diversion of the main flow of
opinion, VOL 5, No. 1, p. 3 (December traffic away from property which abuts
1062). " 'the old right -"of -way. Recite v. State,
nt 1974. 298 Minn.. 500.' 215 N.W.2d 786.
160.04 Width of roads j
1. Construction and application 2. Additional right of way
Streets and alleys Inet
Lid
ed within a's In the absence of.specific Information
recorded plat, which had been estab- township road established in 1915 would
fished and maintained by the township' be presumed to be four rods In width
for more than six years as a town road, ;. pursuant;to the then existing law. Op•
should be • at least four rods wide. Op.' Atty.Gen., 377b-1, Dec. 16, 1966.
Atty.Gen., 396f-3, Nov..7. 1960.
12
;)71t 01. ti-7.7irst : c ass "secmlr under. Special Laws ,1885,
s
Chapter 1]0:' ThCs subtlit I�+lou ,,ill np)1'11 to roads at11(1.8treets except platted
streets withhr,eitles. , Qu
i ' l .:••ti, 1+ + + 1�:.. ya:rr :r r r;t I e:
[Sea Malit volrnae for tC'A.nf aubd.'9J ..J,.:
Aulended by Laws 1073, c. 123, art. 5, •$` r.7..
1973. Amendment."' Laws 1973,'.c. ,123, public: use;" he ' must assert his right
art.. 5.:J 7, was a general authority, -per- within a statutory period by physical
,mltting„ the,coriaolldatlon',of „the'_ternle action or suit,,Ad:''-':':.. ' +
'•villages'". and "boroughs*"" into :the s, Where only road --to •iota owned by
term "cities" or the 'substitution of,the , -plaintiffs and 'another mus road which
.term "statutory cities",•fore:"villages" 'passed through plaintiffs' property and
and/or "boroughs.',' ,+terminated at the other property and the
Cross References; road was a public road from county road
Privately owned:.•recreational.rareas'• to plaintiffs', driveway. the remainder of
dedicated to public use, see 4.87.03.1 the road was not private property. as
Recreational public
ue,lanes..seJ.87.e•1[ 164' 't"'asserted' by plaintiffs, but was also a
t15Re l [A'164•, ..public road. Leeper, v. Hampton Hills
Inc..' 1971,'290` Minn..143, 187 N.11 2 765.
If, for a continuous period of not leas
Supplementary. Index to, Notes than six' years, a'portion designated on
a pplat as a.road'had been used by the
Easements by. prescription 10.6,, `1.`c publicand'in addition thereto worked
.New trial 26 - and kept .ln repair as a public road un-
der the' authority"and expense of the
a<.,,.,1 Ipubllc authortiles,,the portion would be
3. Construction and application deldicated'aud ,established as a public
;.,This section, Jf construed, to lextend road pursuant 'to
this section, and the
public dedication of road; by, public use width,of such rr.2d'would he two rode
W widths greaten than,tlrat,u['actual on'each side' of,the'centerline"without
public use, results' in;;uneonstitutional ;reference to the plat and the so-called 50
!taking of property, without 'Aue,process foot dedication strip could'be t.laregard •
:of{lu.tv.: liurfnecht t t:'1'own lid.?;of::Hoi_ fed Op.Atty.Gmt •:377a-4, Se it. 7, 19G1.
Iywuod;,Tp.; .;t`arxer iCounty ,;,1975; '3114 6 , =-, JVaturp and ,requisites of dedica-
A11nn.. 505, 232 • N,W.2d 420 .,, t "y rl, .Itlon •: ,
This sectlon:provides a atatute of,llm- r,a; PubitC ;it e. nee(I nut 'for period 'of
'Itatlons, the running ufrwhich,estgpslun �tatute,of_ll itationa for, road to be
owner from. denying exiatence,Of, a;pub- �tledfcated:;to. yubllc'and al that is"re-
IIc easement. 1, Id. :i, •lb..l qulreddle thut,clrcunnstances be such as
Privately -owned land;ounnot,,beCome to, erniit;tl+e,inference clearly and un-
public road;byadverse.:use beyond,Dur- equivocally.-Bengtson•v,;)'I1lageof,Aia-
•Ilon'so-used'merely;by..&;statutory ,pro- rine,on- t,.:Crofx,J,197G, 310..A1inn..;508.
110unceninent to that effect. ild - t 246.•NAV,.2d,582, i • '
i. It is .the• right oNtravel b> all the 'A;;dedlcatlon•�of,,-publicroad resin tip -
world. and not the.vxerclse:oi, the; right ri;:oit-.as,9ent and ;'not prescription and It
which constltutes•a road n' public -high- -maybe made ;instanter.•:Id.,-,
!way. Quist v. Fuller,''1974, 300,-Minn: ti,PresuniptIon:'of..publlc aocepptance`.o[
+365. 220 N.W.2d 296. 1-n, >,,. ,+.:'•d'edlcation•of;.highway ❑ray ,be drawn
I Town board. should follow the- provi -,from! an actual: assumption of care and
'dons of , $' 164.07: in establishing ;a= 2rrod " 'control of an alleged -highway by public
cartway as'a 4-rod cartway;.where,the.:: authorities by.,grading, working, :or
cartway' had originally been .established -:. ,bridging upon. it. .Id.:
pursuant to provisions of 3 '1G4:08. and i acceptance of dedication 'of roadway
the -provisions of this section, ,would not. +by public' may'be',shown by user' by the
In this instance be applicable. .Op.Atly. public,, as by travel or by acts of public
Gen. 377b-1. July 19, 1963. 'i officers In, lipproying and maintaining
This section In In the nature of a stat-the highway. Id•
ute of limitations and Is not a grant of 1 Elements . of', Common-law 'dedication
authority for future conduct.,:sOp.AttY• bf roaNvay'are the landowner's' intent.
Gen., 396f-3, Dec.: 131: 1960. r,L' :::.:r1 , . express or implied, to have his land ap-
Dedication-In general'' i'`:;,:'e1:+. proprlated and devoted to a public use
Public road may be established by and an acceptance of that use by the
user, by statutoryry dedication or by'com- ;public. ' Id.
moo -law dedication. • Bengtson vi YIi- Whether'a' ark' of 'a city street which
la a of Marine on St: Croix :A976 ,310 was tinppladed had -been dedicated by
B ,, r;,,., .,user' under - the provisions of subd. 1 of
inn. cab, n y* public
b8'l: thts''section' should be determined by
-stiDedication by public use ourin 10 ac- the occurrences' since theaddition addition of
tual tonally exceed the amount o[ ac- 'the last sentence of Subd. 1 by the 1967
foul dedication. ,Carver- ot. Town 175. amendment:• ••Op.Atty.Gen., '59-A-53,
of Hollywood Tp.,' Carver County,: 1976, , , . .,
304 Minn. 505. 232 �N.W.2d 420.' April 1,9, 19G5.•;
This section. ctun'operate to dedicate'a 7. •r- Time ,requlred
road only to extent of actual .use, over - Under this: section a road Is dedl-
the statutory, period. Id.:. , :•d , ! cated to .public'. to the width of tour
Dedication. , resulting from adverse rods. It it, has; been :used, repaired and
.public use of road arises from fact: that worked,,by the'yyubft. for six continu-
the use gives owner notice that, If he otts year's. OP. tty.Gen., 377a-4. June
means to dispute the rightfulness o!r i 26. 1962:
13
§ ; 160.05 ROAD&, ENERAL -PROVISIONS
g. Effect of dedication pany 1t Is doubtful if village fi :au-
"
I:ven though there has been corip►i- thorized tolensa' such' road.. and Day
ance with this section, the right o{ Dub- rent.;for its use.-.,, Op.Atly.Qen.,!, 47if,
lie In and to a road is that' of an eahertt Seppt 17 1862. `- '-0i' "
nient only: and the abutting ownertrevArr.StreetaIaod• ailsys included wlthin, a
talus the fee ti�lls to the center _91it recorded. pplat wltich had .Veen . estaU
road'subJe-er-ET-the rgnt4kllahed''and'maintained by'a township
use any thereof as :may be ;ia for - more • thatn six. Years :could .be,va-
necesnary In the Improvement ,of • tho,,'' cated as town roads under, the provi-
blghwa for public use. Op.Alty.Glen2;4''f
lslons'osectl6ii 164.07;'but,'It'not'va-
377b-10 Nov. 1, 196t.:; i ':,+'lrfl'!cated, the:town,had a•duty to maintain
07.
10.5 Easements' by prescription•i;l!:. Il;.�ttheA y.Gunden,' 39Gf 3,' 'Novi,
and 1G4"'I
- Where there wan open, continuous{iOp,Atty.Oen:; 396f-3, Novi 7,0E]9G0.1( .c,
'visible and unmolested use of portion4ot 7 lg'.''•:Usert'of'`road!,'• r++` Tom,
'lot' ds public road,; for,:, more:-than.-151ifii tini•mandamus,actlon, to, compel, town
years the public acquired an easement a members of towns board of'super-
by the prescription and Its right Couldf, visors .to remove obstruct Ion,;from ,''or
not be divested without public consent wa8 at , road
i h plaintiff
astatua
or operation of law; '. tax •titla"convey-1
once of burdened lot to owner of ad- ,;; tory use evidence sustained , finding
Jacent lot did not terminate the ppublle i„ that an main tonance=-work performed
lrIghts in road. QQulst,v. Fullert,1074,f;8UU 4- on =roadi-duggrinKK the period, in;• w1►1ch
i Mlnn. 806, 220 N.W.2d 206 I,1; :red I ttabllsthedahaflebeen p rtormed rgyplaln=
11.• Repairing and working of•road .' :, i;'tlff'for,'hls personal benefit..;,:Moritk'v.
-.,.Under this section Win not neceanary Town'of. Burns, 197E 292•'Mlnn 166;' 193
' that every part o[ 'road be worked at I r 6201 _
government expense:or• that;any, :par, , ,rW` laintlff who -contended that,road`waa
'ticular part receive attention every.year ,. a public road, dedicated' by' statutory
!of the six -year period.. Leeper v. Hamp-, I` user'had burden of proving that•::town
ton 'Hills., inc.;' 1971, 290'MInn:A43,, 187 ihad::worked the'road ilkept lt•1n: repair,
N.W.2d:766, ,I 1,%'t "i ' t:, +! ' tt or authorlxed� use,i'obi Public ;funft,for
126"1 W166 of road ' "+,' l .- y, il+ 1' thAt ,Uurpose, buG`plaintiff,was: notire.
Boundary of public' hlgh%vA�.!acquired quire to 'show, that the government
liy. public, use Is question of fact to be, worked' every. part , of road during' the
,determined by ,fact finder:;' Barfpecht.v; six -year' statutory, period, d, even that
Ibtvn Bd.' of. Hollywood ''Tp.' Carver it"worked•"somA)part of -road eery?year
County, ,1075, 304 -Minn `_606;ii 232 W. W.:, during: six,years.. Id
2d 42tt. ;;, .; 'To' Drove ,-dedicatio`n'`of! ptilill6 i road
Width `of prescriptive., easement Be- ' 'by'stntutory user; one 'must show'`that
qulred by. public use of. road, is not lint: for period of six -roars continuously the
.1ted to portion of road actually. trai•eled public` used the rond and' the govern -
and. may include shoulders "and, ditches ment kept'itin"repair•, ld.''•
that are needed and hate actually been fir' One can establish publle,user of!road,
used'to support.and;,ma tat the Gav- by showinqf�+tlint,it comptiratively.ismal►
eled'portlon. Id.. ,'k�r.`"P'' ` '',', .; Inumbef:•ofl•persone used =the road fro•
: A.town.has the authbrity.,to'reqqulre Isix'yeara'Contlnubuslyn:ld.- ;,_
the 'removal of fences or' Uees'1vlthin -4-^1'6r,plYr0l)Aes.of%roadslbeing',dedicated
road limits If the usefulness of lf"ie road . t"tryppuilllc;'public, 'lraer rhay;be-eat"blished
for public travel would be Impalred:•:Op ; Illy iicomparatively'small nwnber.of er-,
Atty.Gen., 377b-loJ, Nov,'1 ,1961. ' sonsLeepet' v'•Hanipton Hllla.,;lnc
As an IncWent of.his. fee`Aitle; td`the .-1971 290:•lilnn. 143;,187,NA%%2d.7G5.'
center of the road; 'the -abutting, owner W!1':vldence�Bupparted'tlnding, that trail
is the' owner, of tho''trees, hedges land iiassing,=_through -plaintiffs' property, was
fences on and along the road.' Id.,s1.(�a dedicated. by _user, tu, public,,and, there-
-
relor to the enactmentJof+.thls:sec :PYore beennle>a ptihlic rond prior to.pplain
tlon'-the width "of' -'a 'road't.acquired tiffs `acqufsitlon of .the Property, in'ac-
through-public use'waa'meaaured, byAho .` 'lion bwplointiffs:to recover damages for
character and the extent'=o[ : the: uPer trespi�sa, and. unlawful i8pproprfation••of
Op.Ally:Gen., 377-a-4, '?ic G"7; 19G1. '!land'On' ground •that thw1raili was their
Where road wan acquProd lbynppubllC ii•Ivstetproperty: Idar'1 + i., 1 ' ; i,i
user. and subsequently the':road• deslg >'`•Under!revldence'''ahowing .lthat' :road
lnaf6d"4ii'a"county4state'61d'•;highwayl •derved-110 homes In".area.,whlch.received
'deBignatfont''as county -state gId;,'-high garbage. and refuseAfig posal"service pro -
way, would •rot =Increase -;the' w 1dth of •.vided -by vllldkei, they trial court .did .not
the road to fiG feet:.:`Id i I 1r r , i+�+�a ':3otiniiiilt; error'-In'.determining'that such
17. 'Obitruetion of 'road! i "" ri t`if"i `''road%%van a'rublic road: an a- matter of
Where two rod road, had'`.Ueen,?uiai+d 'r.tlaw."Trehnicic v. Gordon 19G1; 259 Minn.
f.and 'nialntained for over six'years'thln 11GTwIcAtablimh's road nn.'a=publlc.roh6,
section. would deem the,1•oad dedicated IV'ls'necessary :not only to•ahow.that
to tile public to a width of two rods on road was kept in repair and worked In
either side or the center line.' but "excess'of six yearn, but also that there
,town board would be obligated ' a to DaY ' iwas'a pulilie userfof• road. iAd.•
for Improvements .which wore',taken oil The stnUUory, user •provlslons<of; this
the outer one rod. ; OP.Atty Oen , 877a�4: sectlon do not:'apply; to cartwal s ':.Op.
,Sept- 6, 1962. s` , s.9t , Alty.Gen..' 377b,,1,,, Dec 7G, 19G6 t
11L ':V cati ghf 1 nd wrthlna's dry: hail '22. ! Evidence, „ • i>
formerly been a "platted street'.' which Common uner.by public le werY high -
had been vacated, , the land,,could , be est kind of evidence � of . public accept -
claimed by. the' city: sec, a, dedicated ance; of dedication of • highway. Tl^.nit-
streetr b user if the'.requfretnenth ,of son v. 0-Minn.VIIILLge,;of Marine.8'24N.W St: 2. x,
"Build. 1 of this section -were met. PP. 1976,1 608; 246:N.W.2d 682.:
Atty,Qen:, 69a58,-Jan. 13,y197T t ,,, ise;rdedicationas,';.of pu))Ii:•iroadh public
Vacation of road. after 11977expiration',`of • -1tse;,such as 'fora public road, . may he
two years from date of order Changing Implied , from 'the circumstances: of the
road under it 160.09,did not,peevent toper- in lvidual case;; I bwever; intent,to ded-
ation of six year user htatutel ' Op.Atty, ieatel4bust -be, shown. , .Quist v, Fidler,
Gent 377A_15, Feb. 28', 1963.' `S ' ' •1974,'800 Minn, 865, 220 N.W.2d 296.
....
:.,i . e,euet ..:.on: 9a_ Sufficlenev �ef evidence
ROADS; GENERAL TROVISIONS V 1GO.®H
to recover reasonable value of Impro�e- which he' made' ld public toad which
ments which plaintiff had made on the crossed his property.., Id.
road which crossed his property and 26• New trial " r
which led to other properties. Bengt-, Where motionfor new trial whs,ba'sed
son .v:': Village of Marine on St:' Croix, solely on ,newly , discovered evidence and
1976; 310 Minn. 608, 246 N:W.2d 682. 'dld .not. question eonvtitutlonallty of
Trial' court's findings may be held taking of roadside , property. constitu-
clearly erroneous, notwithstanding evl- tlonal Issue was,not within scope'of Sit-
dence to support such findings, If re- preme Court's review .of' order denyingg
viewing ,court 1a left with deflnite' and that motion and, where plaintiff etrtted
;. firm conviction that a mistake' has no ground for a new trial as to inJunc-
been made: Id. " tive relief no question ".of . law was
' "' Evidence' supported finding that vll- raised. Schaust v.„ Town Bd. of Holly-
lage 'had'not Impliedly,,contracted • to wood Tp., Carver' County,. 1973, 296
reimburse.,piaintiff,-for Improvements, Minn.;571, 204 Xjy.2d 646.
160.06.;' Trail or'portage dedloatlon J• ., 1
Crdsi.•Referencei have the, effect of automatically vacate
Inapplicatlon of this'eecllon io.ctertaln Ing portions of.the old road that would
'canoe :routes marked'. by State .see;! not be; used and, Ili. order to have any
86.32. "" :` ' ' pportion of,Lite old _road revert to. abut -
Privately
, owned..' recreational areab ting ownere. procoodinga, under j.160.00
dedicated to public, use,.Bee ,4 8703 , would. be required.. Op•AttyiGem, 377-
1. In general 13-10-K,,Deo._ g,aQGO,•
The adoption of a . resolution by a
lown:.board to alter a road ,would
16007,41niprovements within,or without boundaries
`rond authority ofiany"eotutty, tmiil' of clty� 11111y;,06froprinto land V.f
jMid,shch,.rca4onable''antns4, ag, It nllty dt1etii:;prnpci ,to_;nsalat lit the Iin1wore.
mcut.aiul"mulutennnce of mud+i bl•Idgcir, or ferries 'lyhlg.' bc�;oi l'the boiindl
cry of nud .Imu]Ipg,litto.ench' col sty; town or city,:,. , ;;f' i ,., _ r"0111 ;','",
Amended by Lairs 1073 c.'123 art
"1973"Amendment. Lawa;,1973• c."I2,3, Under subd. 6 o[ 4 165.07;: a county
art. 6, 1 7, was a general authority,per- could not expend county state -aid high-
mltting the consolidation of the terms wayjunds on an Interstate bridge un-
-'i,.' ".villages" and "boroughs" into. ithe less It,connected to the: county slate-
terni-',citle9" or the substitution of the aid : highwayy: system, ' but the..:County
form 'statutory .cities`" for "tillages', board would., not be .so, restricted with
;in it/or,.,'bdrougits." reference to•.,county, road..and bridge
1. Construction and appllcatlon - funds. ,Op.Atty.Gen.,s 642b-7 June 29.
A city. could expend funds for the 1960.
ntafntenanoo of a town road and bridge 3. Towne l"
providing access to the clty'n dump '; The town board' could use, funds for
grounds,: oven though there wahino''dl- ^' construction and maintenance of roads
rest connection between the town road leading Into the sown,, where the road
and the cityy Op.Atty.Gcn., 69-A-53, formerly was. before annexation- pro -
March 10,! 19G4L; ; ;':: ""' '"'eeedings• a portion of` the town.i Op.
Atty,.Gen , 442a-21, July; 25,
160.08 = Controlled ' accesO' '
"Subdivision' I. ' Plans:;''The' rdad"I`Ili,thoiitiek. of file r;tlltc, counties. or
cltivx, acting"Pilo ithntt';'i'oi lu`'coiija+rittlon. ivi'th:u
(,nth, othi'r,,.or, }vttll, oily'
f/ah�ltil alin'uf�; or illth`ntij`, IW:subdli'im,io'.(i)f till otiler, ,state hav-
ItlfhIl''iu imtrnctIoh or III.,, ctlaiicay"
a re'iiittltoi lull to ldliil' fur"thi+•'iht�fi�iatton; 'tlBtablinli►ijf•lit, locatliiu, .rdocatlon,
hujlrtiei'ui@ut,' and iutcliiinc( IiP.. cdlitrolliid noels higlilvaj`g 'for ptihlic iisc
whenever' the"road' it ittItorI,tlostlet`i'rniUu that h•iiffic cou(ltlouv, itrescat, or
fhturc;,will Justify 4uch'hlKhwal>i, i 1
.Build. 2., Repealed by Laltb 1000, C. 312, j 8, off. May 8, ]i)OD.
[See inane voluutc' for' -text of subdst 3 to 7]
Amended.by!Laws+ 1073, c.'123,'urt. 5, § 7."
1973 Amendment.' Laws 1973, 'e:• 123;` "'Opinlon, Vol. 6, No, 1 p• 3 (December
art. 6, 4 7 +vas a general authority per.-,i! 7962). ••i i.' ' "''
mltting the consolidation of the terms. . 1Condemnation '
"villages" "and " "boroughs into' tile' : e ' While the. taking of an abutting land-'
term :!cities", or ,the substitution of the ;j;
term 'statutory cities'• for '-villages- owner's "direct 'access to' an existing
and/or "boroughs." I;,,,s;'. <' t 1':'highw•ay, Tis :constitutionally compensa-
Croea References ble, compensation need not. be paid. to a
Approval, of hlf,-liw'ay protects .by nonnbutting landowner for damages. no
Metropolitan Council 'see ¢ 473.16T." w, —different In kind from those suffered by
Bus lanes required on freeways,:, set the general public, resulting from the
473.1 la closing of Indirect access openings to a
Routes 'through "hiunlclpalltlee;' Bee,i controlled, access highway, which causes
44 161.171 to ]61.177. the nonabutting landowners and the
general public_ to use a more circuitous
Nana { r vws 21. f L
I,4~% lwal, t\ 303, H "1", 61.
lleu.BL.tf113, §§ -1t;3, _1ai:L l.awx .1S7:1 c.:St. j i'
76, 77. Gen.St.1878, c. 13, § 47.
Laws 1913, e. 235, §§ Itev.Laws 1905, §§ 1197, 1105. Laws 1877, C. 50, L
Gen.St.1894, §§ 1832, 1880.
Interim Commission Comment, 1958
No substantive change.
Cross References
Notice of dedication, filing of, see § 117.19.
Occupancy of public way as giving occupant no title thereto, see § 541.01.
Right to overflow, obstruct or impair highways, see § 110.16.
Town roads or cartways, dedication, see § 161.15.
vesting in state or rights, etc., dedicated to public use before road is taken
over by state, see § 161.18.
Law Review Commentaries
Highways, establisbment by pre-
scription, interruption sufficient to
prevent. April 1923, 7 Minn.Law Re-
view 418.
Notes of Decisions
Acts preventing dedication 10
Burden of proof 23
Constitutionality I, 2
Construction and application 3
County line roads 15
Dedication 5-10
In general 5
Acts preventing 10
Effect of 8
Nature and requisites 6
Requisites 6
Revocation 9
Time required 7
Defective or Incomplete proce
to establish highway 14
Effect of dedication. 8
Establishment of highway by
authorities 13
Evldoace 22-24
Burden of proof 23
Sutliclency 24
Jury questions 25
Nature and requisites of dedl
6
Obstruction of road 17
Plats 20
Questions for Jury 25
Railroads 21
Repairing and working of road
Retroactive operation 4
Revocation of dedication 9
Section line roads 16
Special laws, validity 2
Sufficiency of evidence 24
Time required for dedication 7
User of road 19
Vacation of road 18
Validity I, 2
Special laws 2
Width of road 12
Library references
Iighways C-1-17.
C.J.S. Highways §§ 3-24.
edings
. I. Validity
Former section was not Invalid,
public and was not unconstitutional, as de-
priving one of his property without
(hie process of law. Miller v. Town of
Curium, 1800, 42 Minn. 391, 44 N.W.
127.
cation 2. -- Special laws
The act entitled "An act to legallze
certain highways in Ramsey county",
",
Sp.I,aws 1879, c. 226 was applicable
to
the highway in controversy, and was
a valid and constitutional exercise
II of legislative authority within the
principles laid down in State V. Mes-
senger, 27 Mlun. 119, 6 N.W. 457.
State v. Bruggernnan, 1884, 31 Minn.
403, 18 N.W. 454.
40
11 �,,.,.,•� -&oho, c. la
v-L, was mrenae
to legealize and establish as a public
highway an old traveled road extend-
Ing through several towns in Dakota
county, which had been in use by the
public for several years as a common
highway. The act was a public and
not a private law, of the passage of
which the citizen and courts were
bound to take notice. The enactment
was not In violation of the consiltu-
tional provision (article 1, § 13) that
private property shall not be taken
for public use without just compensa-
tion first paid or secured. State v.
Messenger, 1880, 27 Minn. 119, 6 N.W.
457.
3. Construction and application
Former § 160.19 was not exclusive
and did not supersede common law
dedication of highway to public use.
Bosell v. Rannestad, 1948, 226 Minn.
413, 33 N:N 2d 40.
Intention to dedicate land as a high-
way may be inferred from owner's
long acquiescence in public use of his
hand as a highway, his acts in further-
ance Of such use, his recognition of
a need for the highway, and his rec-
ognition of validity of public's claim
to the highway after it was used as
such. Keiter v. I3erge, 1945, 219
Minn. 374, 18 N.W.2d 35.
Knowledge and assent of the owner,
whether known or unknown, may be
presumed from long continued unin-
terrupted use by the public of the
`c roadway. Metalak v. Rasmussen,
1931, 184 Minn. 260, 238 N.W. 478.
In an action for trespass on plain-
tiff's land by highway oflicers in at-
tempting to improve a highway, where
It had been determined that it public
highway had been acquired by ad-
verse user, but it was diilicult from
the evidence to find the boundaries of
such highway, the cause was re-
manded for further proceedings to de-
termine such boundaries. Arndt v.
:I`honas, 1901, 03 Minn. 1, 100 N.W.
378, 106 Ann.St.Itep. 418, 2 Ann.Cas.
972.
A road which had been used by the
public, kept In repair, and worked by
the public authorities for more than
10 years was a public highway, with-
41
In former § 160.19. Elfelt v. Still-
water St. R. Co., 1803, 53 Alban. 68,
65 N.W. 116.
Former § 160.19 did not supersede
the common-law rule as to dedication,
under which user by the public for no
particular time and without keeping
In repair or working the highway may
establish an acceptance. Klenk v.
Town of Walnut Lake, 1892, 51 Minn.
381, 53 N.W. 703.
The owner's intent to dedicate land
for a highway may be presumed from
Iong-continued uninterrupted use by
the public. Id.
If road has been used and kept in
repair and worked for at least six
years continuously as a public high-
way by the town, it Is a public road.
Op.Atty.Gen., 379-A-2, July 12, 1935;
Op.Atty.Gen., 373--C-13-B, July 12,
1935.
Former § 160.19 had no application
to municipalities. Op.Atty.Gen. 396-
G-4, Feb. 16, 1950.
Where a "road" as defined in former
§ 160.19 was established, such facts
standing alone did not put into opera-
tion former § 163.17, relating to town
roads, since latter section applied to
road established by administrative
proceedings. Op.Atty.Gcm., 377-A-11,
March 7, 1935.
"Dedication by user," as defined In
former § 160.19, applied to road wher-
ever it was actually located, and had
no reference to town lines. Id.
Former § 160.19 did not apply to
trails or private driveways. Op.Atty.
Gen., 377-A-4, March 7, 1955.
Rona established prior to enactment
of former § 160.10 was not subJect to
the provisions thereof and was public
highway only to extent that It had
been traveled an(] used. Op.Atty.Gen.,
377-A-4, Sept. 22, 1053.
Former § 160.19 did not relate to
highways within a city or village and
could not serve as the basis of a dcdl-
cation by user therein. Op.Atty.Gen.,
390-0-4, April 10, 1953.
The United States, which was grant-
ed a right-of-way by the state over
certain state lands for construction
11111 �` ` ` , it, i� 11�;Ii ITZ -K -AxUVISIONS
-Z 111ii-
7"W
pet
d j h
160.og
4jjjZ 1, 0 01-ithe made % t
crilased, h),
I d -public.
201) Perty.
Ow teliki, -P
Z engt
0 ion. Id. a,
.4115 ix.1 Mere hoU,
I w.Zd SR? acifely 131tir neu. t -7-
rjal *,U
XW
. . . . . . . . .•. 07 4F,�,Jtaj
1, i-
_T172, �_
320
Z
'12:0 4
J
tr
All
.g, Si4 pmuse
14 Crass Referaereces
of autoubatlostRy vaaft I t.
Start-.Tzry r--er "s sect an tO.certa.M "of,
I= NA" Inappucatfort of this
Ve the Aff
vAl,
of mad to canoe rotates m ;ng'Pordons a the'
Uri Lk" Uhq6ed h" been a
_pWorrned b 85.32. marked: by
zeculca ift Ls not necessary XT Pwn- lc� state, road that would
• 3`10C be used japd.lfi,order to have,
that &rerY pan of road fie worked at "If for hLff Persona, benefit ritz v. Privately, Own aria voaionOf,the old road rever to abaunt� government expense or dedicated to public
regreatlonal. 1:
Town or Burns, 1972, 292 Minn. 165,,193 Ung owneri,pizceangs,:under j 16o.op
that any, par- 'N-W.2d '620.-
t1cular P,muso.,, see'j' 87.03 Would. be" requIrid..
receive attention ever I'laintifftvilo contended that', a
of the a t race Year in general OP.Atty'Gen, 371r
lye
q adoption D;k1960j
r orlod. Leeper v. Hanip- road,was ..th ' ;'. - ? .-I ' .'_
x a P a Public road dedicated by f
F
Iton Hit Inc.. 1971. 290-Minn., 143., 187 user had statutory t6wilk.,board tone Iftl a?
S, . �141 1 0 .,&,.resplutlon
N-W.2d giroad �would,not.
Hills,
65. had, burden of provinii that.town n, I
�7
worked the road
'12, or kept t In repair, Width of road authorized Use. of PUJjJjC funds. for .160.07 ArnprovementS Within-or'With
110tindary of public highway "Cqt I tired calfred to 81 Out bdindakle's
V, that purpose,
'but Plaintiff was not,re-
ti"by Public use Is question low that the 1'*1(')'jId
ileteritifile(I by fac of fact to be 1111010rity f
1.4 ,J. JlltptAltrltlfC arid CX4
, government OW11-dr, eitv�
worked every I. finder. Harfnecht v.
I,d- Of Hollywood TP Part Of road during the ;11111'silell rellsonit
Town
Wol"e.
N.,Vr .rve It worked some Plirt of road every Year melt" l 11' Of -��ad. A)jel� `VA Or-ft
2d 420. h2 during I I
cotinky. 1975 304 Minn. 505, Ca al"'ear st"ttitOlT. Period or even that it"Id
Ividtil of P ary of and leadfiik
six years id. .011(1'tile bound. To prove dedication 'of publiq
re8criPtive easement He- by road Coun. y, loan .pity 1; -1, 11: (itilrod by Public use of road is one Must. allow that d: by, j,ft%j.";,1973:('!.,'j2;j.r.
statutory user,
art:i 5 J,
lied to portion of I-Oacl actually not lim- for period of six i'Cill's continuously the ic"211.
traveled and May include 8110"Iders and ditches Public Used the "call find en
Admi t
art. G.A 7. L;Aws, 1978.1 C-193,"" . Xilder, subd.i�
4,a eneral alit46ritY, per.. Could -not-, exp a 'County
that are needed and have actually been One call. establish knitting tII6, C end icounty eta
men[ kept it In repair. the govern-
Z. used to support and to. Onqq IdatIq'A'.,'o( tho;,terme te-aid high.
,maintaill the 11 public -ume ad Yfliageg" and' wAYof4rkds,,on1 AniJinterstate bridge un.
Clec, portion. ld by showl? ,,,r Of,ro
If`tIlitt", conipars, ely aniall 0
hit . 0;, tile'.
tile Rubst"tiOlit Ot'tbe,, al higll%%.&
ilt-iCtln�ectedoto:<thoi county state.'
persona used the road foi. term �Atatutory',citle Six years continuously. ld An -, � tit :-IlYbtem.:,,but � the, county
Lilo removal of fences or trees within Por Purposes or road being dedicated A town has �htl authorlty' 0 Pei' 8,
to r,quf�e 51
for 'Nillakes' boUd. , woufft not, be, 4so. � restricted with
road 111"Its If the usel"I'lless or lilt) road ed t,:..'j iit i-refe
for lijilillt, trayol AN,(wjjjd bo I,%, vor -borougba reference tot 111111110, 111111141 11hur lilt%), Ili, 41titIll to-,- county road, and brid
Itirod, oil, _p
Alsilild 9% an June 23.
city could exPOIlk funds for 1. e 1960. i�,,
AM�,0011,, 37111. 103, kl%% 1. V01111 %%till 111111111t,.p of J,ep-
A,% III% h1k4doll. of �114 roe 140kim. Lontirke V. 1-111111ptoll 1011
It 11 Is.., line tel"Ince Of a town road and bridge 3. Towns:.;
t101"(011 (it them "tI0 to 010 1071., 290 NI.Inn. lad. the abuttilitz ox%.Pf,Ilor 1', 143, 187 N'.\\' 2tl 765uld'use funds fur
sad -maintenance of "346119
mvl \xk, gkv 1�1MINtIlAy \Vdm where the road
mv lit
�% 1,ire tta et w u
"St ki'6 %he 'ekIbLet'llent Of thin sec- fore 1) her tO 111thlic and there-
1 Rq, annexation pro-
- . , I : tIOn the width tiff ' became a public road prior to Iftin- •off the -town.. op.
P, ujy.�. 1960.
1
vl...... through P11I)lle "me )VA" 'Miliolirt)(1 I)y till) Its, p1liffitl(fN to recover i
Of a road acquired tjo 11eq%ilsit loll of 1110 proilorty, r1i
0111OL71 kill and the exlellf, of (110, User. it litillilites for
OP -Al. Y.C;en.. 377-a-4. Sept. 7. 1961. 're"Pamm and unlawfill apProtirlation or
AVIlere road
AlInd Oil ground that the trall,was their
Was acquired by public Pr,%.
Uncr LOW millismuently the road deflig, OtO IwoPerly., fit. an . . . . . N1Jj((jz11l'jjjtjjV01f1(%m' or .rill'
Under
- 1 -1 Haled an a "011"IY-111ate itid highway ider evidence sh I elti t r Ilk ()Ili, - (,1*- 11 e()j)jj0jiitjq r
e Ow nf I - tit enell. Ot wr or j%-jtjj jjljy:
de-signatioij a rved 10 hoilles let a which
at road n '%\ I I . , , 1, � . .
Abli ".f., . I
�'I'lixiii;i onotilow -ittite
res. W
as coulso-siate aid high-- It received d -11 Ji
waY Would rot garbage still refuse disposal service pro-
increa e the %%,i Ith of vided 11Y village 111� filith(irif 1 1 hav-
the road to 66 feet. Ids 6 i oil
the trial court did not
17. Obstruction of road COMIlift error 111' determining that stioll
fi road Wam it I)lll)llo roittl Als a. matter of Where two rod rued had been 'jjncd law, Trohniric V. Gordon, 1061, 2G0 t'. till(
lie,
,
and maintained for over mix years thin A111. 100 N.111.2d 622, section would deem the road dedicated To establish a road [in
it Public rond. It C 0011dit Oil rpment, 6r
t?, 1110 public to a Wldth of two rods oil It In nocomilary not only to show' that
e Cher tilde Of the center title, but a road was kept In rcPalr and worked lit
ti )d 2.-
town board would be obligated to pay excess Of six Yearn, but also that there lliC�00,-'iiY L.A%V'10060,',e' '96.1fa, 8
for improvements which were taken oil , , i. 1. !. . ., Ir .
the Outer one rod. "'"jLheasitlautblin user of road 12.1
OP.Atty.Gell., 377a-4. t d., F
Itory user provis'lon
Sept. 6, 1962. a of,this j ee-flialh,follonc,40 i; eXt-b ;8 d4 8 J61),110 !",H : .1 , section do not apply to cartways. op. , ..•Li 11' , 18. Vacation of road s Atty.Gen., 3771-I. Dec. 16, I966. Amended by.i�,awj(,1073 'e0�123,,;nrt05`§l7A
],',van
though land within a city. had 22. Evidence 1973 Amendmetit,.'':Law4!�197,3,,I:i�'!:,123,1.i''l:
formerly been a "platted street" which Common user nion; V61.-I"No, 1. P. $1 (Detiombert
the land kt� per,- 062).",
had been vacated, Y Public Is very high- art. 5. § 7. Was a general author
ity tl;
claimed could be eilt kind mitting the consolidation of the ternis
li street by the city Of evidence of Public accept -
as a dedicated anco of dedication of highway "village#3".:,aticl,:."boroughs". t Ahto, ;Conderimatidn"ili"
by user if the requirements of Ben t - term.,'!ci Lies",, or.,
son v. Vlllige of Marine on �t. Cr'olx, the, substitution N.N'hile, thil, t4LkIng-,qf at) -abutting land -
of, the qf;
of this section were met. op. 1976. 310 Minn 508. 246 N.W.2d 582.i tern "�katutqry
AttY.Gen.. 69a-53, Jan. 13, 1977. cities" wner'g "direct-acidess" to' an
for' "villages" existing
51"
A dedicatiot; -of land to the public and/or borou Vacation of road af'er expiration of -monstItutionally, compensa-
ghs.-t.; N,:ik it., iii;(highwayols
1: time, such as for a public road, 11111Y be Cross References ble, compensation need not, be paid. to a
two years from date of order changing I
Implied from none,butting landowner for damag6si no
road under § 160 09 did not prevent per- In If ideal .the circumstances.of the Approval of hilliway projec 8, b
ne 1111,1e'�§ 471.1 7. Y14f,-diffeyent. -in, )dnd fromi,those suffered by
alien Of six Year user statute. 1 0 its Case:, however. intent to ded- Metropolitan' Cou
Op.Atty. scale Must bo, shown. Fuller, jrequIrq�1,qn,;&ewaYe;l�,se6 -lit, I a., gelit; a. 4bllc�..,reoulting from the
Gen.. 377A-i5. Feb. 28 Quist v Dus th I
1963.
': '... cooing of. ]nfl]
A974, 300 Minn; 365, 220 N.W.2d.29G.", jjk,,U, 6_,cIV rect4c6ess openings W4
Where road upon anti Parallel to 24 Sufficlencl of evidence Routes th�.�u idftlbli,"S�e ""controlled i acceas,Jblqhway, which causes
473.i6ii.ne'
road right of way rat!- Rou
cerses LIvidence (11 not support finding t 1.l77.,,:j'14
to be trunk %11
highway and reverts to railroad conk 161.171 o-16 Is . nonabutting .: landowners and the
Evidence was not a that
Public roa(l. In a Law Review Comments enerol liublic-Ita'und,almore circuitous
effort Commentaries 'iu.i.n1eltnil Of h
14- Rights of .abutting 'Oroptdriy' 'Ow'ner's Inc. State. Dept. of. Highways. by
Ighway, iaccesa;..;.Courteaus.
to freeway aceess. William Mitchell, :,�.Spannaua,1978.26STq.W.2d66.: