Opinion
A23-0825
12-14-2023
In Re the Appeal from the Findings and Order Redetermining Benefits of Otter Tail County Ditch No. 52.
Otter Tail County District Court File No. 56-CV-20-23
Considered and decided by Larkin, Presiding Judge; Johnson, Judge; and Frisch, Judge.
ORDER OPINION
Jennifer L. Frisch, Judge
BASED ON THE FILE, RECORD, AND PROCEEDINGS, AND BECAUSE:
1. In April 1906, Otter Tail County Ditch 52 was established.
2. Over 100 years later, on December 12, 2017, after holding a public information hearing and receiving a report from the county ditch inspector, respondent Otter Tail County Board of Commissioners, acting as the drainage authority, found that a redetermination of benefits was necessary for Ditch 52 because the "original determination [did] not accurately reflect those areas benefitted by the ditch system" and the "benefits . . . determined in the original drainage proceeding [did] not reflect reasonable present-day land values, which have increased over the past century." See Minn. Stat. § 103E.351, subd. 1 (2022). The board ordered a redetermination of benefits for Ditch 52 and appointed three viewers.
3. On May 30, 2018, the viewers submitted a report to the board. In January 2019, the county auditor-treasurer sent a property owners' report to the impacted property owners, including appellant Richard Chodek. The board mailed and published notice of the final hearing, which was thereafter held on March 18, 2019. At the hearing, the board directed the viewers to reexamine some of the parcels. The viewers did so and submitted two amended reports. On November 5, 2019, after the final hearing, the board issued a final order for the redetermination of benefits.
4. Chodek appealed the redetermination of benefits to the district court, maintaining that there was no legally sufficient petition to commence the proceedings, no notice was mailed to landowners prior to the redetermination, proper notice was not provided as to the hearings, the expansion that included Chodek's property was arbitrary and capricious, and the viewers used incomplete and inadequate methodologies. See Minn. Stat. § 103E.351, subd. 4 (2022) (providing for appeal of redetermination order under Minn. Stat. § 103E.091 (2022)).
5. Chodek moved for summary judgment, arguing that an entity known as the Pommes de Terr River Association (PDTRA) was the drainage authority for Ditch 52. The district court denied the motion for summary judgment, determining that the Otter Tail County Board of Commissioners is the drainage authority for Ditch 52. Based on this determination, the district court limited arguments and evidence to be presented at trial by excluding evidence and argument regarding PDTRA.
6. After Chodek presented his case at trial, the board moved for judgment as a matter of law, which the district court granted. Chodek appeals.
7. Chodek first challenges the district court's determination that the county board of commissioners, and not the PDTRA, is the drainage authority for Ditch 52 and that the board followed the appropriate redetermination procedures. Summary judgment is appropriate when "there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and either party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law." In re Redetermination of Benefits of Nicollet Cnty. Ditch 86A, 488 N.W.2d 482, 484 (Minn.App. 1992) (quotation omitted). We review summary-judgment decisions de novo. Riverview Muir Doran, LLC v. JADT Dev. Grp., LLC, 790 N.W.2d 167, 170 (Minn. 2010).
8. A "drainage authority" is "the board or joint county drainage authority having jurisdiction over a drainage system or project." Minn. Stat. § 103E.005, subd. 9 (2022). Jurisdiction may be transferred either to a watershed district under Minn. Stat. § 103D.625, subd. 1 (2022), or to a water management authority under Minn. Stat. § 103E.812, subd. 1 (2022).
9. The record does not reflect that any such transfer occurred. Chodek claims that a joint powers agreement between Otter Tail County and other governmental units transferred power over the ditch to the PDTRA. We have reviewed the agreement and disagree with Chodek. The stated purpose of the agreement is for "the joint exercise of powers . . . to develop and implement plans" relating to flood protection, erosion control, pollution prevention, and maintenance and improvement of water quality. No part of the agreement addresses transfer of authority over ditches. We also observe that the PDTRA comprehensive plan, a document submitted by Chodek, provides that "[t]he public drainage systems within the watershed are managed by drainage authorities on behalf of the landowners receiving benefit from the drainage system. The individual county governments serve as the drainage authority." Nothing in the record contradicts this statement. Accordingly, the undisputed evidence demonstrates that the board, and not the PDTRA, is the drainage authority for Ditch 52.
10. Chodeck also asserts that certain alleged procedural errors were fatal to the redetermination of benefits. He alleges that: (1) the viewers improperly began work before being sworn in; (2) the board failed to find that the benefited or damaged areas have changed; (3) the board failed to hold a formal hearing; and (4) the board failed to create a detailed survey report. Chodek failed to raise most of these contentions in his motion for summary judgment, and we do not generally address issues raised for the first time on appeal. Thiele v. Stich, 425 N.W.2d 580, 582 (Minn. 1988). Even so, none of these contentions are adequately supported by argument or authority, making them "mere assertions" unsuitable for our review. Schoepke v. Alexander Smith & Sons Carpet Co., 187 N.W.2d 133, 135 (Minn. 1971).
11. Chodek also maintains that the district court abused its discretion by limiting the evidence and arguments at trial. Chodek does not cite any specific arguments or evidence that he believes to have been improperly excluded, and we therefore discern no prejudice associated with the district court's exercise of discretion in its trial management decision.
12. Finally, Chodek challenges the board's alleged decision to expense litigation costs, viewer expenses, and drone flyovers against Ditch 52's maintenance fund as contrary to Minn. Stat. § 103E.735 (2022). Because Chodek did not make this argument to the district court and because the argument is also unsupported by argument or authority, we decline to consider it.
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED
1. The district court's judgment is affirmed.
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.