Preview:

STATE OF MINNESOTA IN COURT OF APPEALS A09-1961 City of North Oaks, Appellant, vs. Rajbir S. Sarpal, et al., Respondents. Filed July 20, 2010 Affirmed Halbrooks, Judge Ramsey County District Court File No. 62-CV-08-4330 Leonard J. Schweich, Susan Steffen Tice, Jardine, Logan & O`Brien, P.L.L.P., Lake Elmo, Minnesota (for appellant) David J. Szerlag, Pritzker Olsen, P.A., Minneapolis, Minnesota (for respondents) Considered and decided by Worke, Presiding Judge; Halbrooks, Judge; and Stauber, Judge. SYLLABUS When the facts of an equitable-estoppel defense are susceptible to more than one interpretation, we review a district court`s decision following a bench trial for an abuse of discretion. OPINION HALBROOKS, Judge Appellant challenges the district court`s conclusion that it is prevented by the doctrine of equitable estoppel from requiring respondents to relocate a shed they built on

their property in 2006. Because we conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion, we affirm. FACTS Respondents Drs. Rajbir and Carol Sarpal purchased a lot located in appellant City of North Oaks in July 2003. A short while later, they constructed a home on the lot. In 2005, they had an in-ground swimming pool installed. The Sarpals hired professionals to build their home and install the pool. But in 2006, Rajbir Sarpal (Sarpal) decided to construct a garden/pool shed without hiring a general contractor. As he began the process, Sarpal went to the city to obtain a building permit. The city informed him that he would first need to get approval from the Architectural Supervisory Committee (ASC) of the North Oaks Homeowners Association (NOHOA). After providing an initial

submission regarding his plans to construct the shed, Sarpal was informed in a letter from ASC that it needed additional information in order to complete its review, including, among other things, [a]n as-built survey with the location of the pool, pool equipment, fences and water feature. ASC suggested that Sarpal could possibly obtain an as-built survey from the builder that constructed his home or the company that surveyed the property before construction, but Sarpal was unable to do so. Sarpal was also told by NOHOA that the city might have a survey in its files. So Sarpal took the letter from ASC and went to the city offices to inquire about obtaining the required survey. Sarpal asked a city employee for an as-built survey and showed her the ASC letter. She handed Sarpal a survey dated 2003 that was apparently commissioned before the installation of a septic system on the 2

property. Sarpal asked the city employee, Is this the survey I need? to which she responded, Yes. It is undisputed that this survey was not, in fact, an as-built survey because it was prepared before the construction of both the home and the pool. The house on this survey is labeled proposed house, and it is also undisputed that the house was actually constructed in a different location. But Sarpal was not aware of these facts. Sarpal drew the proposed shed on this survey to submit to ASC. He also drew in measurement lines from the proposed house to the proposed shed. His depiction shows the proposed shed as avoiding the 30-foot setback area. He submitted this drawing to ASC, and ASC approved his plan. Once ASC approved the plan, Sarpal went back to the city to obtain a building permit, and the city approved a building permit for the shed. Because Sarpal was going to act as his own general contractor, he was required to sign a waiver that stated, I am solely and personally responsible for any violations of the State Building Code and/or jurisdictional Ordinance in connection with the work performed on this property. Sarpal then proceeded to construct the shed. He measured the location of the shed from his home, using the measurements that he had calculated based on the location of the proposed home on the 2003 survey. Because the house was not built where it was proposed to be built, the shed encroached onto the setback approximately 15 feet. In a memorandum to the city, a city building official explained that both NOHOA, and ourselves, review and approve site plans based on the information presented. It is the applicant[`]s responsibility to make sure that structures are in the right place. We do not currently require the placement of property line stakes for accessory structures, therefore in the field, we 3

can only use for reference the same thing the owner did, that is the existing building. Based on the house location, the shed location is correct as submitted. The problem is, the house is not in the location shown on his submittal. In September 2007, the city sent the Sarpals a letter, explaining the encroachment and requesting that they move the shed within 30 days. In response, the Sarpals

commissioned their own survey, disbelieving that the shed could violate the setback because Sarpal had followed the approved plans exactly. After the survey showed that the shed indeed violated the setback, the Sarpals applied for a variance. The variance was denied due to a lack of undue hardship; the variance denial was not appealed by the Sarpals. The Sarpals then sought an extension of time in which to move the shed because [m]oving the structure entails moving sprinkler heads and valves, removing fence posts and pouring a new foundation and that those tasks would be difficult at that time of the year. This request was granted with several conditions. But ultimately, the Sarpals did not move the shed. In April 2008, the city brought a petition for injunctive relief, seeking a court order requiring the Sarpals to relocate their shed. The Sarpals answered and raised the

affirmative defense of equitable estoppel, among others. The parties cross-moved for summary judgment, and after a hearing on the motions, the district court denied both motions. The district court found that genuine issues of material fact remain on the question of wrongful conduct on the part of [the city] and, therefore, . . . Summary Judgment is not appropriate. The district court stated that [i]f the city acted in a wrongful manner, the city may be estopped from enforcing its zoning ordinance.

4

A bench trial was held. After hearing testimony from Sarpal and from a city building official, the district court held that the Sarpals had established the facts necessary to assert the defense of equitable estoppel against the city. The district court concluded that [p]roviding the Sarpals with inaccurate documentation, failing to competently review the building permit application, failing to place the Sarpals on notice of the error, and approving the Shed application constitutes wrongful conduct on North Oaks[`] part. The district court reasoned that [t]he imposition of equitable estoppel prevents the injustice that is bound to occur if the Sarpals are forced to incur the extensive expenses and obligations of relocating or removing the Shed, especially after the significant time and money expended on the initial construction of the Shed. This appeal follows. ISSUES I. II. What is the proper standard of review? Are the Sarpals entitled to an equitable-estoppel defense? ANALYSIS I. Standard of Review A. Summary Judgment

The city has appealed both the district court`s denial of its motion for summary judgment and the entry of judgment in favor of the Sarpals after the bench trial. Although both parties discuss the standard of review on appeal from summary judgment, neither party addresses whether a district court`s denial of a motion for summary

5

judgment is within this court`s scope of review after there has been a trial and a decision on the merits. The Minnesota Supreme Court has held that the denial of a motion for summary judgment is outside the scope of an appellate court`s review when a trial has been held and the parties have been given a full and fair opportunity to litigate their claims. Bahr v. Boise Cascade Corp., 766 N.W.2d 910, 918

Download A09-1961,City of North Oaks, Appellant, vs. Rajbir S. Sarpal, et al., Respondent

Minnesota Law