MINNEAPOLIS COMM. DEV. AGCY v. EMPLOY

Full title: The Minneapolis Community Development Agency, petitioner, Respondent, v…

Court: Minnesota Court of Appeals

Date published: Nov 23, 1999

No. CX-99-228 (Minn. Ct. App. Nov. 23, 1999)

Opinion

No. CX-99-228.

Filed November 23, 1999.

Appeal from the District Court, Hennepin County, File No. CD2515.

Marc J. Manderscheid, Lisa M. Agrimonti, (for respondent Minneapolis Community Development Agency)

William S. Rosen, Daniel N. Rosen, (for appellants)

Considered and decided by Schumacher, Presiding Judge, Kalitowski, Judge, and Foley, Judge.^_

_ Retired judge of the Minnesota Court of Appeals, serving by appointment pursuant to Minn. Const. art. VI, § 10.

This opinion will be unpublished and may not be cited except as provided by Minn. Stat. § 480A.08, subd. 3 (1998).

UNPUBLISHED OPINION

KALITOWSKI, Judge

Appellants contend the district court erred in granting the condemning authority's petition for condemnation pursuant to Minn. Stat. § 117.042 (1998). We dismiss.

DECISION

This court's review of condemnation actions is "very narrow." County of Dakota v. City of Lakeville, 559 N.W.2d 716, 719 (Minn.App. 1997) (citing City of Duluth v. State, 390 N.W.2d 757, 763 (Minn. 1986)). A reviewing court asks "only whether the taking serves a public purpose and is necessary." Id. (citing City of Duluth, 390 N.W.2d at 764). Under this court's limited scope of review, the decision of the condemning authority may be overturned only if it is "arbitrary, unreasonable, or capricious, or [if] the evidence against the necessity or public use is overwhelming." City of Duluth, 390 N.W.2d at 764 (quoting Housing Redev. Auth. v. Minneapolis Metro. Co., 259 Minn. 1, 16, 104 N.W.2d 864, 875 (1960)) (alterations in original).

Appellants contend respondent Minneapolis Community Development Agency (MCDA) unlawfully took appellants' property because a clause in the contract reconveying the property from MCDA to Hines, a private developer, left the decision to proceed with the proposed project to the sole discretion of Hines. Therefore, appellants argue there was no assurance that the stated public purpose justifying the taking would be satisfied.

Because intervening events have rendered this appeal moot, we do not reach the merits of appellants' argument. An appeal will be dismissed as moot "if during the appeal process an intervening event occurs which renders it impossible to grant any relief or which makes a decision unnecessary." Obermoller v. Federal Land Bank of St. Paul, 409 N.W.2d 229, 231 (Minn.App. 1987) (quotation omitted), review denied (Minn. Sept. 18, 1987). In Moore v. McDonald, 165 Minn. 484, 485, 205 N.W. 894, 895 (1925), plaintiffs brought suit to enjoin a railroad company from constructing a bridge and to require revocation of the building permit for the bridge. The district court denied plaintiffs' application for a temporary injunction enjoining construction of the bridge. Id. By the time the appeal was heard, the railroad bridge had been constructed. Id. The supreme court dismissed the appeal, holding it was moot because "[a] reversal of the order, and the issuance at this time of the temporary injunction * * * would accomplish nothing." Id.

Here, it is undisputed that all buildings and improvements on land acquired by MCDA, including appellants', have been demolished and Hines has begun construction of a new 750,000 square foot Class A office building. Thus, the public purpose for the taking is being fulfilled. Because it is undisputed that the taking of appellants' property is serving a necessary public purpose, we conclude that a decision by this court on the merits would accomplish nothing. We, therefore, dismiss this appeal as moot.

Appeal dismissed.