Preview:

Mary Pallansch Holt, et al., Appellants, vs. City of Sauk Rapids, et al., Respondents. C5-96-1935, Court of Appeals Published, February 25, 1997.

STATE OF MINNESOTA IN COURT OF APPEALS C5-96-1935 Mary Pallansch Holt, et al., Appellants, vs. City of Sauk Rapids, et al., Respondents. Filed February 25, 1997 Affirmed in part and reversed in part Huspeni, Judge Benton County District Court File No. C895726 Marshall H. Tanick, Teresa J. Ayling, Mansfield & Tanick, P.A., 1560 International Centre, 900 Second Ave. S., Minneapolis, MN 55402-3383 (for Appellants) Pierre N. Regnier, Cara J. Debes, Jardine, Logan & O'Brien, P.L.L.P., 2100 Piper Jaffray Plaza, 444 Cedar St., St. Paul, MN 55101-2160 (for Respondents) Carla J. Heyl, John C. Keller, League of Minnesota Cities, 145 University Ave. W., St. Paul, MN 55103-2044 (Amicus Curiae) Considered and decided by Norton, Presiding Judge, Huspeni, Judge, and Foley, Judge.* SYLLABUS A municipality has the authority to restrict the number of dogs permitted per residential unit. Affirmed in part and reversed in part. OPINION HUSPENI, Judge Appellants, both dog owners, seek reversal of the district court's denial of their request for attorney fees after the court declared unconstitutional respondent municipality's ordinances limiting the number of dogs per residential unit. Respondent seeks review of the judgment of unconstitutionality. Because we conclude that the ordinances are reasonably related to the public's health, safety, and welfare, we reverse the summary judgment granted to appellants and affirm the denial of their motion for attorney fees. FACTS Respondent City of Sauk Rapids passed ordinances in February and March 1995 limiting the number of dogs that can be kept on residential premises. The significant provisions of the ordinances are: (1) only two dogs over six months of age may be kept in one residential unit; (2) persons wishing to have three or four adult dogs in their residential unit may apply for a permit to do so; and (3) anyone legally keeping more than four adult dogs on a residential premises on the effective date of the ordinance can obtain an exemption and retain those dogs, provided every owner of property within 100 feet of the dog owner's premises consents. Permits for keeping three or four dogs are obtainable on a showing that the dogs are licensed and vaccinated; testimony indicated that at least four such permits have been

file:///C|/Users/Peter/Desktop/opinions/c5961935.htm[4/16/2013 8:27:34 PM]

Mary Pallansch Holt, et al., Appellants, vs. City of Sauk Rapids, et al., Respondents. C5-96-1935, Court of Appeals Published, February 25, 1997.

granted. Appellants were two of the dog owners affected by the ordinances. Appellant Cynthia Eveslage operates a dogbreeding business on her residential property. She owned three adult dogs and a litter of pups on the effective date of the ordinances, April 19, 1995; by the time compliance was required on August 19, 1995, she owned three adult dogs and two five-month-old pups. She obtained a permit to keep up to four adult dogs. Because Eveslage did not have more than four adult dogs when the ordinance was passed, she did not seek her neighbors' permission to have more than four. Appellant Mary Holt runs a "stud service" business on her residential property; she also rescues Newfoundland dogs until homes can be found for them. She had nine adult dogs on her property when the ordinances became effective and twelve adult dogs on the date compliance became mandatory. Holt did not complete the process to obtain a permit for up to four dogs or seek the consent of her neighbors to retain more than four dogs. ISSUE Are the ordinances unconstitutional? ANALYSIS In evaluating challenges to the constitutionality of a statute, a reviewing court recognizes that the interpretation of statutes is a question of law and accordingly that the reviewing court is not bound by the lower court's conclusions. [1] In re Blilie, 494 N.W.2d 877, 881 (Minn. 1993). A municipal ordinance is presumed constitutional; the burden rests on the party attacking an ordinance's validity to prove it is unreasonable or that the requisite public interest is not involved, and consequently that the ordinance does not come within the police power of the city. City of St. Paul v. Dalsin, 245 Minn. 325, 329, 71 N.W.2d 855, 858 (1955). To prove an ordinance is unreasonable, a complaining party must show that it "has no substantial relationship to the public health, safety, morals or general welfare." State by Hyland, 431 N.W.2d 868, 872 (Minn. App. 1988) (quoting County of Freeborn v. Claussen, 295 Minn. 96, 100, 203 N.W.2d 323, 326 (1972)). "If the reasonableness of an ordinance is debatable, the courts will not interfere with the legislative discretion." Id. (quoting State v. Modern Box Makers, Inc., 217 Minn. 41, 47, 13 N.W.2d 731, 734 (1994)). Appellants must therefore prove that it is not even debatable that the challenged ordinances have no substantial relationship to public health, safety, or general welfare. Minn. Stat.

Download c5961935.pdf

Minnesota Law