Tthe Appellate Court of Judge Larkin has affirmed the 2010 decision of former Fifth Judicial District Court Judge Bruce F. Gross on the Mountain Lake Trail. Rachel and Ken Yoder had appealed the decision before the State Court of Appeals in November 2013. The appeal was heard in Marshall in Wednesday, April 9. They were asking if the district court had erred in its interpretation of the easement. Mountain Lake City Attorney Maryellen Suhrhoff represented the City.
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 that dates back to 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 the appeal involved 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, who purchased the property in 2003, 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.
In August 2010, the City sought the District Court ruling that their plan to surface the then gravel Mountain Lake Trail was within the score of a 60′ easement given in 1996. The Yoders argued in 2010 that surfacing the trail was beyond the scope of the easement, and if beyond the easement, they should be compensated. In 2010, the District Court concluded that the easement was unambiguous, and it allowed the City to “grade and level the trail to the extent necessary to prepare it for surfacing,” “to surface the trail” and “to install essential erosion, drainage and sediment controls.” The District Court also determined that the Yoders were entitled to compensation caused by “making alterations to the soil and vegetation cover, and scenic values on the right-of-way for purposes of constructing a trail compliant with public accommodation laws (Americans with Disabilities Act). The District Court directed the City to commence a condemnation proceeding.
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.
Based on the appellate court decision, City Attorney Suhrhoff has requested that the attorney for the Yoders arrange mediation to settle all matters.
The entire ten page Court of Appeals decision can be found on the City of Mt. Lake website: 
www.mountainlakemn.com.
