Dispute deals with interpretation, scope of Right-of-Way Easement
Kenneth and Rachel Yoder are appealing to the Court of Appeals of the State of Minnesota for a review of a Fifth Judicial District Court order relating to the Mountain Lake Trail dating back to 2010. The dispute between the Yoders and the City of Mountain Lake deals with the interpretation and scope of a Right-of-Way Easement between Raymond H. and Harriet B. Dick dated July 22, 1996. At issue specifically is whether the City’s transformation of the original trodden “walk path or trail purposes” into an engineered, multipurpose, regional, recreational, paved trail violated the terms of the Easement, resulting in a de facto taking of the Yoders’ property.
On August 27, 2010, the City brought the underlying action against the Yoders. The claims at issue in this appeal involve the parties’ competing judgment claims, seeking interpretation of the scope of the Easement. In addition, in 2010, the City sought a declaratory judgment that the construction of the paved trail was within the scope of the Easement. Meanwhile, the Yoders counterclaimed for a declaratory judgment that the City’s construction of a paved trail was outside the scope of the Easement and ended in taking of the Yoders’ property, which entitled them to just and fair compensation from the City.
At that time, the district court of the Honorable Bruce F. Gross ordered each side to submit their own respective interpretations and scope of the Easement. The City’s argument was that the Easement did not contain any restrictive language that would prevent the paving of a trail, that the plain language in the Easement gave the City the right to “construct” a trail and that it was reasonable that the trail would be transformed from a natural, grass path to a paved trail at some point in time. On the other side, the Yoders argued that the plain and ordinary meanings of the words “walk path or trail” in the Easement meant that it was to consist of a natural, meandering path over and across the existing land that would be used by people walking by foot, and did not include any significant construction, culvert installation, leveling, grading, paving and removal of brush and trees. The Yoders additionally noted that the City never compensated the Dicks for the Easement, and that because the Dicks never demanded compensation, they believed and intended the Easement grant was limited and would not end in harm to their property’s value.
On October 1, 2010, the district court issued an order determining that the City’s construction of the paved trail was within the “unambiguous scope” of the Easement, but that the City’ substantial alterations to the soil and vegetation cover, as well as the scenic values within the Easement’s right-of-way during construction of the trail, were not within the scope of the Easement. To that end, the district court found the City had acquired an “additional easement” over the Yoders’ property, for which they must be compensated, and also ordered that the Yoders were entitled to a jury trial on the issues of damages.
After directing the City to start condemnation proceedings in a separate action, and awarding to the Yoders’ attorneys’ fees and surveyor’s costs, the district court of the Honorable Judge Christina M. Wietzema entered final judgment on November 21, 2013.
On appeal, the Yoders intend to ask if the district court erred in its interpretation of the Easement.
