SCHAUST v. TOWN BD. OF HOLLYWOOD TWP., CARVER CTY

Citation Codes

Equivalent Citations

citation codes

Docket Number

No. 43016.

Attorney(S)

Koll, Fahlgren Hartfeldt, James W. Fahlgren, Will Hartfeldt, Dahl, Perkins Lilja, and Thomas P. Lilja, for appellants. Robert A. Nicklaus and Dwight J. Leatham, for respondent.

Judges

PER CURIAM.

See more information ...

Smart Summary

Factual and Procedural Background

Mathias S. Schaust and Walter Barfnecht initiated an action in the Carver County District Court seeking to enjoin the Town Board of Hollywood Township from widening a roadway adjoining their property or, alternatively, to recover damages. The trial court initially granted a temporary injunction preventing the road widening. After a trial without a jury, the court vacated the temporary injunction. Plaintiffs moved for a new trial based on newly discovered evidence. The trial court granted the motion as to damages but denied it concerning injunctive relief. Plaintiffs appealed the denial of their motion for a new trial on injunctive relief and also attempted to appeal from the judgment.

Legal Issues Presented

Whether the denial of the motion for a new trial on the issue of injunctive relief was proper, considering that the motion was based solely on newly discovered evidence and did not raise constitutional questions.
Whether the attempted appeal from the judgment was timely and properly before the court.

Arguments of the Parties

The opinion does not contain a detailed account of the parties' legal arguments.

Table of Precedents Cited

Precedent	Rule or Principle Cited For	Application by the Court
In re Application of Rein to Register Title, 275 Minn. 79, 145 N.W.2d 537 (1966)	Review on appeal from an order denying a new trial is limited to grounds assigned as error in the notice of motion.	Used to establish that since the motion for new trial was based solely on newly discovered evidence and did not raise constitutional issues, the constitutional claim was not within the scope of review.
Julius v. Lenz, 212 Minn. 201, 3 N.W.2d 10 (1942)	Grounds for new trial must be stated to raise questions of law.	Applied to affirm denial of new trial on injunctive relief because plaintiffs stated no grounds for new trial on that issue.
Hampshire Arms Hotel Co. v. Wells, 210 Minn. 286, 298 N.W. 452 (1941)	Judgment is not effective until entered; appeal from unentered judgment is premature and must be dismissed.	Applied to dismiss the appeal from the judgment because it had not been entered at the time of appeal.
Arndt v. Minnesota Education Assn., 270 Minn. 489, 134 N.W.2d 136 (1965)	Time limitation for appeal from an appealable order is jurisdictional and cannot be extended.	Applied to dismiss the untimely appeal from the order for judgment because it was filed more than 30 days after notice.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The court first addressed the appeal from the denial of the motion for a new trial. Because the motion was based solely on newly discovered evidence and did not raise the constitutional issue concerning the uncompensated taking under Minn. St. 160.05, that constitutional question was outside the scope of review. The court cited precedent limiting review on such motions to the grounds specifically assigned in the notice of motion. Since no grounds for a new trial relating to injunctive relief were stated, no question of law was presented, and the denial of the motion for a new trial was affirmed.

Regarding the appeal from the judgment, the court noted that the judgment had not been entered at the time of appeal, rendering the appeal premature and subject to dismissal. Even accepting the plaintiffs' oral clarification that the appeal was from the order for judgment, the appeal was untimely because it was filed more than 30 days after written notice of the order was served. The court emphasized that the time limitation for appeals is jurisdictional and cannot be extended. Consequently, the appeal from the order for judgment was dismissed.

Holding and Implications

The court affirmed the denial of the motion for a new trial as to injunctive relief and dismissed the attempted appeal from the judgment as premature and untimely.

The direct effect of this decision is to uphold the trial court’s vacating of the temporary injunction against the road widening and to deny further reconsideration on the basis of newly discovered evidence regarding injunctive relief. The dismissal of the appeal from the judgment prevents review of that order due to procedural deficiencies. No new legal precedent was established by this ruling.

Show full summary ...

MATHIAS S. SCHAUST AND ANOTHER v. TOWN BOARD OF HOLLYWOOD TOWNSHIP, CARVER COUNTY.

Appeal and error — appeal from order denying new trial — appeal from order for judgment.

PER CURIAM.

Appeal from an order denying a motion for a new trial and from the judgment.

Plaintiffs, Mathias S. Schaust and Walter Barfnecht, brought this suit to prohibit defendant, Town Board of Hollywood Township, Carver County, from altering and widening a township road which adjoined plaintiffs' property. The trial court granted a temporary injunction. After trial without a jury, judgment was ordered vacating the temporary injunction. Plaintiffs made a motion for a new trial based on newly discovered evidence. The motion was granted as to damages but denied as to injunctive relief.

Plaintiffs appeal from the denial of the motion for a new trial and from the judgment, contending that the uncompensated taking of roadside property pursuant to Minn. St. 160.05 is unconstitutional. Review on an appeal from an order denying a new trial is limited to those grounds assigned as error in the notice of motion. In re Application of Rein to Register Title, 275 Minn. 79, 145 N.W.2d 537 (1966); 1 Dunnell, Dig. (3 ed.) § 395. Since the motion for a new trial was based solely on newly discovered evidence and did not question the constitutionality of the taking, the constitutional issue is not within the scope of our review of the order denying that motion. Since plaintiffs stated no ground for a new trial as to injunctive relief, no question of law is raised. We therefore affirm the trial court's order denying a new trial as to injunctive relief. Julius v. Lenz, 212 Minn. 201, 3 N.W.2d 10 (1942).

Minn. St. 160.05, subd. 1, provides: "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 to the width of two rods on each side of the center line thereof and be and remain, until lawfully vacated, a public highway whether the same has ever been established as public highway or not; provided, that nothing herein contained shall impair the right, title, or interest of the water department of any city of the first class secured under Special Laws 1885, Chapter 110. This subdivision shall apply to roads and streets except platted streets within cities, villages, and boroughs."

The notice of appeal also states the appeal is from the judgment. According to the file before us, however, the judgment has not been entered. A judgment is not effective until entered. Rule 58.01, Rules of Civil Procedure. Thus, an appeal from a judgment prior to its entry is premature and should be dismissed. Hampshire Arms Hotel Co. v. Wells, 210 Minn. 286, 298 N.W. 452 (1941).

At the oral argument, plaintiffs stated the appeal was from the order for judgment. Even if we accept this oral revision of the written terms of the notice of appeal, the appeal from the order for judgment is not timely. Rule 104.01, Rules of Civil Appellate Procedure, requires that an appeal from an order be within 30 days after service of written notice of filing thereof by the adverse party. The order for judgment in favor of defendant is dated October 16, 1970. Defendant served written notice on plaintiffs by mail on October 27, 1970. The notice of appeal is dated January 12, 1971, more than 2 months after defendant served the written notice of the order for judgment. The limitation of time within which an appeal may be taken from an appealable order is jurisdictional. Arndt v. Minnesota Education Assn. 270 Minn. 489, 134 N.W.2d 136 (1965). This court cannot extend the time for an appeal. Id.; Rule 126.02, Rules of Civil Appellate Procedure. Thus, we must dismiss this untimely appeal from the order for judgment.

Although under Rule 103.03 (b), Rules of Civil Appellate Procedure, an appeal can be taken from an order which dissolves an injunction, it is unclear whether an order that judgment be entered dissolving a temporary injunction is appealable. See, Holliston v. Ernston, 120 Minn. 507, 139 N.W. 805 (1913); Arnoldy v. Northwestern State Bank, 142 Minn. 449, 172 N.W. 699 (1919). However, since the appeal from the order for judgment is untimely, we need not reach the question.

The Arndt case was decided pursuant to Minn. St. 605.08, subd. 1. The present Rule 104.01, which superseded the statute, is identical.

Affirmed as to denial of motion for a new trial; dismissed as to attempted appeal from judgment.