In re Moratzka

974 N.W.2d 266

In the MATTER OF the Application of Timothy D. MORATZKA, TRUSTEE OF the NANCY L. MAYEN RESIDUAL TRUST.

A21-0829, A21-0832

Court of Appeals of Minnesota.

Filed April 11, 2022

Granted June 29, 2022

Matti R. Adam, Itasca County Attorney, Michael J. Haig, Chief Assistant County Attorney, Grand Rapids, Minnesota (for appellant Itasca County)

Keith Ellison, Attorney General, Peter J. Farrell, Assistant Attorney General, St. Paul, Minnesota (for appellant Minnesota Department of Natural Resources)

Allen E. Christy, Jr., Julie N. Nagorski, DeWitt LLP, Minneapolis, Minnesota (for respondent Timothy D. Moratzka )

Aaron Britton, Bovey, Minnesota (self-represented respondent)

Kelly Britton, Bovey, Minnesota (self-represented respondent)

Considered and decided by Frisch, Presiding Judge; Gaïtas, Judge; and Cleary, Judge.^*

GAÏTAS, Judge

In these consolidated appeals involving a parcel of land created via dedication "to the public forever" in 1911, appellants Itasca County and the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (DNR) challenge the district court's grant of summary judgment in favor of respondent trustee Timothy Moratzka. Appellants argue that the district court erred in concluding as a matter of law that the public's interest in the land was abandoned under the Minnesota Marketable Title Act (MTA) because the interest was not recorded within 40 years of the dedication. Because we conclude that the MTA creates a conclusive presumption of abandonment where, as here, the public's interest in a parcel of land created by plat is not validly recorded by the relevant public authority within 40 years of the dedication of any such interest, we affirm.

FACTS¹

The dispute in this case centers on a 30-foot-wide strip of land abutting Trout Lake in Itasca County. Appellants argue that this land, which is essentially a beach, can be used by the public because it was dedicated to the public long ago. But Moratzka, who represents the trust that purchased the disputed land, contends that any public interest in the beach was abandoned under Minnesota law. Before we address the parties’ dispute, we examine the parcels of land at issue, the public dedication, and the procedural history of the case.

A. The Disputed Land

In 2008, the Nancy L. Mayen Residual Trust (the trust) purchased three parcels of land in Balsam Township, Itasca County, which are near or abutting Trout Lake. Currently, Britton's Trout Lake Resort occupies much of the land.

Parcel one contains lots 13 through 17 of Trout Lake Park, all of which abut the lake, as well as a portion of a "vacated public platted roadway lying [between lots 15 and 16] North of the East-West road as it traverses the Plat of Trout Lake Park."

Parcel two is not directly relevant to the issues raised on appeal.

Parcel three, which contains the land in dispute here, consists of "[t]hat part of the road dedicated to the public by the Plat of Trout Lake Park" which lies "South of that [vacated] portion of said road" described in parcel one.

Below is an approximate rendering of parcels one and three, drawn from the abstract of title provided by Moratzka.² The disputed land—parcel three—is shaded.

?

The land that comprises the three parcels was platted in 1911 and recorded the following year. At that time, the land was owned by Healy C. Akeley. In 1911, Akeley dedicated the strip of land running between lots 15 and 16 "to the public use forever." The dedication filed by Akeley described the dedicated land as "the public roads known ... as the Grand Rapids and Big Fork roads." It included all of what is now parcel three and a portion of what is now parcel one.

Following the dedication, neither Balsam Township nor any other public entity took any action in relation to the land. But there was occasional tension between the property owners and the county regarding use of the public way.

In 1967, for example, the operators of the resort then located on the parcels attempted to vacate the public way but the county board voted to oppose their efforts.³ And in 1985, when the county sought to develop the dedicated public way into an actual roadway providing greater access to the lake, the then-owners of the property sued to block the county's plan.

Eventually, the county and the property owners reached a resolution. The county agreed to allow vacation of the portion of the public roadway north of county road 326 and the owners granted the county "a public access located upon the most Easterly property owned by the [owners], a portion of Lot Thirteen." Given this agreement, only a portion of the public-way easement running between lots 15 and 16 remained—the portion now in dispute. The remainder was formally vacated by court order. As a compromise, the public was allowed to access the small remaining portion of the public way—the beach—by proceeding south along the east side of parcel two along lot 13, west down county road 326, then south through parcel three.

Although what is now known as parcel 3 was platted as a roadway, there is no physical road there. And as noted, given the vacation of most of that roadway, the portion of the land that is in dispute is a beach used by the resort, which is now under different ownership.

B. Moratzka's Application to Register Title

The current dispute arose when Moratzka, acting as trustee for the trust that owns the three parcels, filed a Torrens application to register title in 2019.⁴ He asserted that the trust possessed a fee simple interest in the parcels, and he submitted three abstracts of title—one for each parcel identified in his application.

The application acknowledged a public easement on parcel three, indicating that it was encumbered by a "[p]lat dated June 12, 1911 filed of record in the Office of the County Recorder in and for Itasca County, Minnesota, on January 12, 1912 ... dedicating to the public Grand Rapids and Big Fork roads." Moratzka's application further stated:

Applicant seeks the determination that the public and the Town of Balsam and County of Itasca have no right, title, or interest in [parcel three] hereto under or by virtue of the Plat dated June 12, 1911 filed of record in the Office of the County Recorder in and for Itasca County, Minnesota, on January 12, 1912 in Book "2" of Plats page 35.

The reason is that the Town of Balsam and County of Itasca did not record any interest in the road within 40 years of the road's dedication, the road was abandoned, the Marketable Title Act's presumption of abandonment applies, and no public road exists thereon.

The application asked the district court to adjudicate the trust's title to the three parcels of land, including parcel three, free of any encumbrance.

Subsequently, the Itasca County Examiner of Titles (the examiner) reported on Moratzka's application, determining that the township, the DNR, and the county should be parties to the proceeding because (1) the township had jurisdiction over platted roads within the township, (2) the DNR had an interest in maintaining public lake access, and (3) the county had been involved in the prior road-vacation proceeding. Moratzka filed a petition and order for summons requesting that the district court issue a summons for the three public entities.

C. The District Court Proceedings

In the district court, appellants objected to Moratzka's application and moved for summary judgment.⁵ They argued that Moratzka was estopped from denying the existence of the public way and the only way to extinguish the public's interest in the disputed land was vacation under Minnesota's road vacation statute. Moratzka responded that any public interest in parcel three had expired 40 years after Akeley's dedication because it had been abandoned by operation of the MTA.

The district court denied appellants’ motion for summary judgment, concluding that Moratzka had "source of title, arising from Healy C. Akeley's interest in Parcel 3" which "ha[d] been of record for at least forty (40) years" within the meaning of the MTA, that Minnesota's road-vacation statute was inapplicable as vacation had not been raised by Moratzka, that Moratzka was not estopped from claiming abandonment under the MTA, and that the easement created by the 1911-12 dedication had been "abandoned" within the meaning of the MTA.

Moratzka then moved for summary judgment. The district court granted the motion, largely relying on the legal conclusions in its order denying appellants’ motion.

Appellants challenge the district court's grant of summary judgment in favor of Moratzka.

ISSUES

I. Did the MTA extinguish the public interest created by the 1911-12 dedication?

II. Is Moratzka estopped from seeking a remedy under the MTA?

III. Is Moratzka required to seek vacation of the public way created by the 1911-12 dedication under Minnesota's road-vacation statute?

ANALYSIS

Appellate courts review a district court's grant of summary judgment de novo. STAR Ctrs. , 644 N.W.2d at 77. In doing so, the reviewing court views the evidence in the light most favorable to the party against whom summary judgment was granted. Id. at 76-77. The goal of appellate review is to determine whether there are any genuine issues of material fact and whether the district court erred in its application of the law. Id. at 77. Insofar as appellants’ arguments present questions of law, we also review those questions de novo. See Doe v. Minn. State Bd. of Med. Exam'rs , 435 N.W.2d 45, 48 (Minn. 1989) (stating that statutory-construction questions are subject to de novo review).

I. Because no public entity recorded the 1911-12 dedication within 40 years, the MTA extinguished any public interest in the platted roadway.

A. The Minnesota Marketable Title Act

The MTA is a mechanism for landowners to "relieve a title from the servitude of provisions contained in ancient records which fetter the marketability of real estate." Wichelman v. Messner , 250 Minn. 88, 83 N.W.2d 800, 812 (1957) (quotation omitted); Minn. Stat. § 541.023 (2020). To achieve this purpose,...