St. Paul / Court reverses city demolition order

This is just the start of a long line of defeats for the city in their handling of housing inspections matters.

http://opinions-unpublished.blogspot.com/ Click here:
http://www.mncourts.gov/opinions/coa/current/...
STATE OF MINNESOTA
IN COURT OF APPEALS
A06-2118
DLJ Mortgage Capital, Inc., Relator, vs. St. Paul City Council, Respondent.
February 26, 2008
Reversed and remanded
Shumaker, Judge
City of St. Paul
Council File No. 06-936
Eric D. Cook, Christina M. Weber, Wilford & Geske, P.A., 7650 Currell Boulevard, Suite 300, Woodbury, MN 55125 (for relator)
John J. Choi, St. Paul City Attorney, Judith A. Hanson, Assistant City Attorney, 400 City Hall, 15 West Kellogg Boulevard, St. Paul, MN 55102 (for respondent)
Considered and decided by Shumaker, Presiding Judge; Klaphake, Judge; and Worke, Judge.
U N P U B L I S H E D O P I N I O N
SHUMAKER, Judge
D E C I S I O N
¡°The governing body of any municipality may order the owner of any hazardous building or property within the municipality to correct or remove the hazardous condition¡± by enacting and enforcing ordinances addressing this problem. Minn. Stat.¡×¡× 463.16,.26 (2006). Pursuant to this statutory authority, the City of St. Paul enacted a nuisance-abatement procedure, under which the resolution here was issued. St. Paul, Minn., Legislative Code ¡×¡× 45.01-.14 (2006).
¡°[T]he city.s decision to order demolition of the building [i]s quasi-judicial.¡± City of Minneapolis v. Meldahl, 607 N.W.2d 168, 171 (Minn. App. 2000). We review quasi-judicial decisions by writ of certiorari. Dietz v. Dodge County, 487 N.W.2d 237, 239 (Minn. 1992). Certiorari review ¡°is limited to an inspection of the record ...[and is] confined to¡± issues of jurisdiction, procedure, and whether the order in question ¡°was arbitrary, oppressive, unreasonable, fraudulent, under an erroneous theory of law, or without any evidence to support it.¡± Id.(quotation omitted). We will affirm a city.s decision if it is reasoned and supported by the evidence, even though a different
6
conclusion could have been reached. CUP Foods, Inc. v. City of Minneapolis, 633 N.W.2d 557, 562 (Minn. App. 2001), review denied (Minn. Nov. 13, 2001).
1. Due Process
Relator claims that it was denied due process when the city failed to serve it with an abatement order before the city scheduled hearings on demolishing the improvements on the property. Procedural due process should ¡°.be tailored, in light of the decision to be made, to the capacities and circumstances of those who are to be heard, to insure that they are given a meaningful opportunity to present their case..¡± Sweet v. Comm¡¯r of Human Servs., 702 N.W.2d 314, 320 (Minn. App. 2005)(quoting Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319, 349, 96 S. Ct. 893, 909 (1976)), review denied (Minn. Nov. 15, 2005). Nuisance-abatement procedures are subject to two overriding principles that serve to protect the rights of property owners:(1) abatement and removal should be exercised with caution, and (2) notice and the opportunity to be heard should be granted without restraint. Village of Zumbrota v. Johnson, 280 Minn. 390, 395-96, 161 N.W.2d 626, 630 (1968). Relator must show it was prejudiced by the city.s alleged due-process violations. See Sweet, 702 N.W.2d at 321 (concluding that due process did
The city conceded at oral argument before this court that relator was entitled to 180 days for repairs, as recommended by the LHO. We conclude that the city.s decision to remove relator.s property within 15 days is not supported by any evidence in this record, and that it is arbitrary and capricious.
We find no merit in relator.s constitutional and statutory interpretation arguments.
Reversed and remanded.
LEGAL NOTICE:/s/Sharon4Anderson@aol. com ECF_P165913Pacersa1299 Document's are based on SEC filings, current

Rob wrote:

This is just the start of a long line of defeats for the city in their handling of housing inspections matters.

No. More like, this is the long line of case losses for the City of Saint Paul in the criminal justice system, regarding the systematic abuses of their housing inspection division on local property owners.

I agree the City needs to clean up it's act. It is clear by the courts order that the City's action was Draconian in nature.

St Paul does this all the time. This is just the first time someone has held their feet to the fire for it.