Opinion
A22-0687
10-12-2022
Richard T. Jellinger, et al., Appellants, v. City of Anoka, Respondent.
Anoka County District Court File No. 02-CV-21-2444.
Considered and decided by Bryan, Presiding Judge; Bjorkman, Judge; and Slieter, Judge.
ORDER OPINION
Louise Dovre Bjorkman, Judge.
BASED ON THE FILE, RECORD, AND PROCEEDINGS, AND BECAUSE:
1. In December 2020, this court issued its opinion in Jellinger v. City of Anoka, No. A20-0620, 2020 WL 7491265 (Minn.App. Dec. 21, 2020). There, appellants Richard and Margaret Jellinger challenged summary judgment for respondent City of Anoka, arguing that their neighbors' six-foot-high fence violated the city's ordinance regulating fence height. See Anoka, Minn., Code of Ordinances (ACO) § 78-562(e) (2020). We reversed in part, concluding that the neighbors' fence violated the ordinance because it was located "in front of the front line of the residential structure," see id., and exceeded the four-foot height limitation for that area. Jellinger, 2020 WL 7491265, at *3.
2. In February 2021, the city amended its fence-height ordinance to strike the language "in front of the front line of the residential structure" (the 2021 amendment). Jellingers thereafter commenced this action, challenging the process the city followed in adopting the 2021 amendment and seeking a judicial declaration "that City of Anoka Ordinance ORD-2021-1736, amending Chapter 78, Article IX, Division 1, Section 78-562(e) of the Code of the City of Anoka, Minnesota, be declared and is null and void."
3. In January 2022, while this action was pending, the city again amended its fence-height ordinance (the 2022 amendment). This amendment struck the entirety of ACO § 78-562(e) (2021) and replaced it with new language regarding fence-height restrictions. The 2022 amendment, like the 2021 amendment, does not include Jellingers' favored provision that restricts the height of fences located "in front of the front line of the residential structure."
4. The city notified the district court of the 2022 amendment and moved to dismiss this action as moot. The district court granted the city's motion and dismissed Jellingers' complaint with prejudice. Jellingers appeal.
5. Jellingers assert that their challenge to the 2021 amendment is not moot because the 2022 amendment effected only a "cosmetic" change to ACO § 78-562(e). The city contends that Jellingers' claim is moot because the relief Jellingers request can no longer be granted-the district court cannot declare the 2021 amendment "null and void" because that amendment ceased to exist when the city adopted the 2022 amendment. We agree with the city.
6. Mootness presents a question of justiciability, which is an issue of law that we review de novo. See Dean v. City of Winona, 868 N.W.2d 1, 4 (Minn. 2015). An issue is moot if the court is not able to grant effective relief. In re Schmidt, 443 N.W.2d 824, 826 (Minn. 1989). Similarly, an appeal should be dismissed as moot when an event has occurred that either renders a merits decision unnecessary or makes "an award of effective relief impossible." In re Application of Minnegasco, 565 N.W.2d 706, 710 (Minn. 1997).
7. It is undisputed that municipalities have legislative authority to enact and amend zoning ordinances. White v. City of Elk River, 840 N.W.2d 43, 49 (Minn. 2013). The power to enact ordinances generally implies the power to repeal them by enacting new ordinances. See St. Paul Citizens for Hum. Rts. v. City Council of City of St. Paul, 289 N.W.2d 402, 405 (Minn. 1979). We presume that an amendment shows an intent to change existing law. See Honeymead Prods. Co. v. Aetna Cas. & Sur. Co., 132 N.W.2d 741, 743 (Minn. 1965).
8. Jellingers' complaint seeks just one form of relief-that the 2021 amendment "be declared and is null and void." That amendment ceased to exist when the city adopted the 2022 amendment. Because Jellingers seek nullification of something that no longer exists, there is nothing for a court to decide. And there is no effective relief that the district court or this court could grant.
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED:
1. The district court's order is affirmed.
2. Pursuant to Minn. R. Civ. App. P. 136.01, subd. 1(c), this order opinion is nonprecedential, except as law of the case, res judicata, or collateral estoppel.