Opinion
A21-0166
10-15-2021
Leonard Zimmer, et al., Appellants, v. Pine Lake Township, Respondent.
Cass County District Court File No. 11-CV-20-1327
Considered and decided by Johnson, Presiding Judge; Bryan, Judge; and Frisch, Judge.
ORDER OPINION
Jeffrey M. Bryan Judge
BASED ON THE FILE, RECORD, AND PROCEEDINGS, AND BECAUSE:
1. Appellants Leonard and Virginia Zimmer (the Zimmers) own a home located on Plantain Trail N.W. (Plantain Trail) in Pine Lake Township, which is near Walker, Minnesota. In 2016, the fee owners of Plantain Trail executed a deed dedicating the road to the public.
2. In March 2017, the Zimmers submitted a formal request to have respondent Pine Lake Township (Pine Lake) maintain Plantain Trail as a township road (the 2017 Request). Pine Lake denied the 2017 Request, and the Zimmers appealed to the Cass County Board of Commissioners who upheld Pine Lake's decision. The Zimmers did not appeal from the board's decision.
3. In February 2018, the Zimmers filed an action in district court (the 2018 Complaint). Pine Lake moved to dismiss the 2018 Complaint, arguing that under the Minnesota Supreme Court's decision In re Maint. of Rd. Areas Shown on Plat of Suburban Estates, 250 N.W.2d 827 (Minn. 1977) (Suburban Estates), the Zimmers' exclusive remedy was to file a petition for writ of certiorari of the board's decision with the court of appeals. After a hearing, the district court made the following determinations: the public had used Plantain Trail for decades, creating a public road by "public dedication;" Pine Lake did not need to accept that dedication; and Minnesota statutes section 163.13 (2020) did not apply because the road had been dedicated as public by common law. The district court concluded that, pursuant to Suburban Estates, it lacked subject matter jurisdiction over the 2018 Complaint, and that the proper procedure was for the Zimmers to seek certiorari review of the board's decision with the court of appeals. The Zimmers did not appeal from the dismissal of the 2018 Complaint.
4. In September 2019, the Zimmers made another request to Pine Lake (the 2019 Request). They requested that Pine Lake accept the court ruling, recognize that Plantain Trail is a township road, and maintain Plantain Trail. The legal theories underlying the 2019 Request are not immediately clear to this court. Nevertheless, the parties agree that Pine Lake denied the 2019 Request and that the Zimmers did not appeal from that decision.
5. In August 2020, the Zimmers filed a new action in district court (the 2020 Complaint). In the 2020 Complaint, the Zimmers made the following allegations, among others: Plantain Trail had been used by the public since 1994; Plantain Trail "has been constructively dedicated as a public road;" Plantain Trail was explicitly dedicated as a public road by deed to Pine Lake on December 8, 2016; Pine Lake "has repaired and maintained that road and used it as a turnaround for its snow removal equipment;" and Pine Lake "denies that [Plantain Trail] is a township road and refuses to repair and maintain the same." The specific time frame of the allegations regarding repair and maintenance is not clear, and the 2020 Complaint may refer to actions by Pine Lake that occurred or have continued to occur since the denial of the 2017 Request and the dismissal of the 2018 Complaint.
6. The Zimmers requested two specific remedies in the 2020 Complaint: (1) an order "Declaring Plantain Trail N.W. to be a town roadway owned and maintained by Pine Lake Township," and (2) an order "Granting a writ of mandamus requiring Pine Lake Township to repair and maintain Plantain Trail N.W. as a public roadway in the same manner as all other public roadways owned by Pine Lake Township."
7. Pine Lake moved to dismiss the 2020 Complaint, arguing that the exclusive remedy available to the Zimmers was the procedure set forth in Suburban Estates and section 163.16 (2020). Because this was the basis for the district court's dismissal of the 2018 Complaint, Pine Lake argued that the claims in the 2020 Complaint were barred by collateral estoppel and res judicata. In response, the Zimmers maintained that their action was not the same as the one alleged in the 2018 Complaint. The Zimmers argued that the 2018 Complaint was brought under chapter 163, but the 2020 Complaint relied on other legal theories, including Minnesota statutes section 160.05 (2020) and the theory of common law dedication. In addition, the Zimmers argued that additional evidence supports the facts contained in the 2020 Complaint.
8. Following a hearing, the district court dismissed the 2020 Complaint with prejudice. In its brief order, the district court concluded that the action was "identical" to the prior case and that the "request being brought under Minn. Stat. §163.16 plainly shows how little the nature of the action has changed since its previous iteration." The district court concluded that the Zimmers' sole remedy was to follow the procedures set forth in Suburban Estates. The district court did not discuss the dedication of Plantain Trail as a township road, common law dedication, the applicability of section 160.05, or the applicability of chapter 164. The Zimmers appeal the dismissal of the 2020 Complaint. We review a district court's grant of a motion to dismiss de novo. Walsh v. U.S. Bank, N.A., 851 N.W.2d 598, 606 (Minn. 2014).
Respondents argue that dismissal was also appropriate under an alternative argument. Assuming subject matter jurisdiction, respondents argue that the 2020 Complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. Complaints need only include "a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief." Minn. R. Civ. P. 8.01. "'[A]bsolute specificity in pleading' is not necessary; rather, 'information sufficient to fairly notify the opposing party of the claim against it' is satisfactory." Halva v. Minn. State Colls. & Univs., 953 N.W.2d 496, 500 (Minn. 2021) (quoting Hansen v. Robert Half Int'l, Inc., 813 N.W.2d 906, 917-18 (Minn. 2012)). In fact, "the pleading of broad general statements that may be conclusory is permitted." Barton v. Moore, 558 N.W.2d 746, 749 (Minn. 1997); see also Halva, 953 N.W.2d at 503 (citing Barton); Walsh v. U.S. Bank, N.A., 851 N.W.2d 598, 607 (Minn. 2014) (discussing that appellate courts accept all allegations in the complaint as true, "even broad ones"). Given our decision to reverse and remand for further proceedings regarding subject matter jurisdiction, we decline to address whether the facts in the 2020 Complaint satisfy the pleading requirements in Minnesota.
9. "Res judicata and collateral estoppel are related doctrines." Hauschildt v. Beckingham, 686 N.W.2d 829, 837 (Minn. 2004). Minnesota courts do not rigidly apply either doctrine, and "the focus is on whether their application would work an injustice on the party against whom the doctrines are urged." Id.; Wilson v. Comm'r of Revenue, 619 N.W.2d 194, 198 (Minn. 2000).
10. "Collateral estoppel . . . applies to specific legal issues that have been adjudicated and is also commonly and accurately known as 'issue preclusion.'" Hauschildt, 686 N.W.2d at 837. Collateral estoppel bars further action when four elements are met: (1) the issue subsequently litigated was identical to the one in a prior adjudication; (2) there was a final judgment on the merits; (3) the estopped party was a party or in privity with a party to the prior adjudication; and (4) the estopped party was given a full and fair opportunity to be heard on the adjudicated issue. Id. "The issue must have been distinctly contested and directly determined in the earlier adjudication for collateral estoppel to apply." Id. at 837-38. The party asserting collateral estoppel has the burden to establish that "the issue was actually presented and necessarily determined in the earlier action." Mach v. Wells Concrete Prod. Co., 866 N.W.2d 921, 927 (Minn. 2015) (citations omitted). Whether collateral estoppel applies is a mixed question of law and fact that is reviewed de novo. Hauschildt, 686 N.W.2d at 837.
11. Res judicata is a broader doctrine applicable to a set of circumstances, and "[o]nce there is an adjudication of a dispute between parties, res judicata prevents either party from relitigating claims arising from the original circumstances, even under new legal theories." Id. Under res judicata, a party is barred from bringing a claim when the following four factors are satisfied: (1) the earlier claim involved the same set of factual circumstances or whether the same evidence will sustain both actions; (2) the earlier claim involved the same parties or their privies; (3) there was a final judgment on the merits; and (4) the estopped party had a full and fair opportunity to litigate the matter. Rucker v. Schmidt, 794 N.W.2d 114, 117 (Minn. 2011); Care Institute, Inc.-Roseville v. Cty. of Ramsey, 612 N.W.2d 443, 448 (Minn. 2000). "All four prongs must be met for res judicata to apply." Hauschildt, 686 N.W.2d at 840. The application of res judicata is a question of law that this court reviews de novo. Schober v. Comm'r of Revenue, 853 N.W.2d 102, 111 (Minn. 2013).
12. In this case, the district court's order dismissing the 2020 Complaint does not include a detailed discussion of the Zimmers' two requests or of the Zimmers' two complaints. Nor does the district court's order discuss the various legal theories underlying the two requests and the two complaints, or address whether any facts have changed since the dismissal of the 2018 Complaint or the denial of the 2019 request. We also note that the district court's order does not distinguish between the two remedies stated in the 2020 Complaint or separately analyze issue and claim preclusion with respect to each remedy. We are, therefore, unable to review the district court's decision and we reverse and remand for further proceedings. Cf. In re Est. of Eckley, 780 N.W.2d 407, 415 (Minn.App. 2010) (remanding where the district court failed to consider the appellant's arguments and failed to make adequate findings to address the arguments). The district court shall have the discretion to accept supplemental pleadings, and we do not intend to hinder the district court's discretion to permit the Zimmers to amend their complaint or to allow Pine Lake to move for a more definite statement.
We note that the decision to permit filing of an amended complaint or to require a more definite statement would impact the analysis of whether the Zimmers have stated a claim on which relief may be granted.
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED:
1. The district court's judgment is reversed and remanded for further proceedings consistent with this order.
2. Pursuant to Minn. R. Civ. App. P. 136.01, subd. 1(c), this order opinion is nonprecedential, except as law of the case, res judicata, or collateral estoppel.