Opinion
A22-1784
06-26-2023
ROA, Inc., Appellant, v. St. Louis County, The State of Minnesota, Respondent, Elbow Lake Manor Property Owners Association, a Minnesota Corporation, Respondent.
St. Louis County District Court File No. 69DU-CV-21-1468
Considered and decided by Gaïtas, Presiding Judge; Johnson, Judge; and Larson, Judge.
ORDER OPINION
Theodora Gaïtas, Judge
BASED ON THE FILE, RECORD, AND PROCEEDINGS, AND BECAUSE:
1. Appellant ROA, Inc., appeals the dismissal of its quiet-title action regarding real property that was forfeited in 2017 to respondents St. Louis County and State of Minnesota (collectively the state) for nonpayment of property taxes. The district court dismissed the action on the ground that it was barred by Minnesota Statutes section 284.28, subdivision 2 (2022), which prescribes a one-year limitations period for such actions. ROA argues that the dismissal was error because Minnesota Statutes section 284.28 (2022) is unconstitutional and the notice of forfeiture was insufficient. Additionally, ROA contends that an assessment lien filed by respondent Elbow Lake Manor Property Owners Association (the POA) is void. Because ROA's action was untimely under section 284.28, and it forfeited the arguments now made on appeal, we affirm.
2. The dispute involves a parcel of real property described as "Lot 5, Block 1, Elbow Lake Manor," located in St. Louis County. ROA was the owner of that property. But ROA stopped paying the assessment charged by the POA. And the property became subject to tax forfeiture.
3. On October 10, 2017, a certificate of foreclosure was filed and recorded against the property in the office of the recorder of St. Louis County. The POA filed and recorded assessment liens against the property totaling $46,845.
4. On August 5, 2021, ROA filed a quiet-title action in the district court. ROA's complaint alleged that the county auditor failed to provide proper notice of the forfeiture, causing a "jurisdictional defect" in the tax-forfeiture proceedings that invalidates the forfeiture and the state's resulting title to the property. The complaint states:
13. That the notice of the forfeiture as disclosed by the Auditor's Certificate indicate that notice was not served on the plaintiff ROA, Inc. but by mailing notice to [two unrelated individuals].
14. The filing of alleged forfeiture is invalid because of the jurisdictional defect of lack of service of notice of the forfeiture on the correct property owner, the plaintiff ROA, Inc.
15. Defendants St. Louis County and State of Minnesota have no estate, right, title, lien or interest in or to the property, or any part of such property.
5. The complaint also states, "[T]he [POA] may claim an interest in the property from a Notice of Lien filed of record with the St. Louis County Recorder on June 12, 2019, . . . [but] [t]he plaintiff disputes the amount of the lien."
6. The state moved to dismiss the action as time-barred by section 284.28, subdivision 2. The POA joined the motion to dismiss and filed an additional motion for judgment on the pleadings, asserting that ROA lacked standing to challenge the assessment lien because the state was fee owner of the property. See Minn. R. Civ. P. 12.03.
7. The district court granted the motion to dismiss with prejudice, concluding that the action was time-barred by section 284.28.
8. Section 284.28, subdivision 1(a), provides:
The title of the state . . . to land forfeited for delinquent taxes shall not be held invalid in any action or proceeding by reason of any failure, omission, error or defect in the proceedings respecting the taxation of the land or forfeiture thereof, including without limitation: (i) substantial or prejudicial defects, including . . . jurisdictional defects, in the tax forfeiture proceedings.
The statute further provides that any action challenging the tax forfeiture must be "commenced within one year after the filing of the county auditor's certificate of forfeiture." Minn. Stat. § 284.28, subd. 2.
9. On appeal, ROA argues that section 284.28 is unconstitutional. However, ROA did not raise this issue in the district court, and the district court did not address it. Appellate courts generally do not consider matters not argued to and considered by the district court. Thiele v. Stich, 425 N.W.2d 580, 582 (Minn. 1988). This principle ordinarily applies to constitutional issues that were not raised below. In re Welfare of C.L.L., 310 N.W.2d 555, 557 (Minn. 1981); see also State v. Vasko, 889 N.W.2d 551, 559 n.6 (Minn. 2017) (citing C.L.L.).
10. Because the constitutional question was not litigated below, we decline to consider the issue. See, e.g., Charboneau v. Am. Fam. Ins. Co., 481 N.W.2d 19, 23 (Minn. 1992) ("We decline to address these new questions because they were not litigated below.").
We also note that ROA fails to explain on appeal how section 284.28 is unconstitutional. See Waters v. Fiebelkorn, 13 N.W.2d 461, 464-65 (Minn. 1944) ("[O]n appeal error is never presumed. It must be made to appear affirmatively . . . [and] the burden of showing error rests upon the one who relies upon it."); see also Schoepke v. Alexander Smith & Sons Carpet Co., 187 N.W.2d 133, 135 (Minn. 1971) (explaining that an assignment of error in a brief based on "mere assertion" and not supported by argument or authority is waived and "will not be considered on appeal unless prejudicial error is obvious on mere inspection"); Ganguli v. Univ. of Minn., 512 N.W.2d 918, 919 n.1 (Minn.App. 1994) (declining to address constitutional allegations unsupported by legal analysis or citation).
11. ROA does not argue on appeal that the district court otherwise erred in applying the one-year time bar of section 284.28 to dismiss ROA's quiet-title action. Because we discern no obvious prejudicial error in the district court's application of section 284.28, and ROA has waived any other arguments regarding the applicability of the statute, we affirm the district court's decision to dismiss ROA's complaint pursuant to the statute. See Schoepke, 187 N.W.2d at 135.
12. Although ROA raises two additional arguments regarding the merits of its quiet-title action, we do not consider those arguments because we affirm the dismissal of ROA's complaint as time-barred under section 284.28.
ROA's additional arguments are, first, that "[p]ersonal service by regular mail is legally insufficient when the person served is available and able to be served," and second, that the POA's "attempt to file a lien without following the applicable statutory procedures makes the lien void."
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.