Opinion
A22-0967
12-22-2022
Town of West Lakeland, Respondent, v. Karl E. Auleciems, Appellant, Susanne M. Auleciems, Appellant, Ethan Auleciems, et al., Defendants.
Washington County District Court File No. 82-CV-18-2962
Considered and decided by Smith, Tracy M., Presiding Judge; Worke, Judge; and Wheelock, Judge.
ORDER OPINION
Renee L. Worke, Judge
BASED ON THE FILE, RECORD, AND PROCEEDINGS, AND BECAUSE:
1. Appellants Karl E. and Susanne M. Auleciems (appellants) own property in respondent Town of West Lakeland (the town). In 2018, the town sued appellants for violating its zoning code (the code) by advertising and renting their property for short-term rentals.
2. In June 2019, the district court found that appellants violated the code and enjoined them from renting their property. The district court also found appellants in civil contempt and required them to certify their compliance with the district court's order. If appellants failed to certify that they ceased advertising and renting their property, they would be required to pay the town $118,890 plus costs.
3. Appellants challenged the June 2019 order. They argued, among other things, that the district court erred by finding that they violated the code and by granting the injunction. This court affirmed. See Town of W. Lakeland v. Auleciems, No. A19-1211 (Minn.App. Mar. 9, 2020), rev. denied (Minn. May 27, 2020).
4. Before this court released its opinion, appellants claimed that they complied, but the town received reports of additional rentals. The district court held a show-cause hearing.
5. In October 2019, the district court filed another order finding appellants in civil contempt because they continued to rent their property. The court imposed an $81,870 fine and a jail term unless appellants paid the sanctions and the previously ordered $118,890 fine.
6. Appellants challenged the October 2019 order. They argued, among other things, that the district court erred by imposing criminal penalties for civil contempt. This court agreed, reversed the October 2019 order, and remanded for any further proceedings. See Town of W. Lakeland v. Auleciems, No. A19-1992, 2021 WL 79789, at *6 (Minn.App. Jan. 11, 2021). But this court stated that the opinion had "no effect" on orders preceding the October 2019 order; as such, "the district court's June 2019 order is binding on the parties." Id., at *6 n2.
7. While the second appeal was pending, the district court filed another order in March 2020, finding appellants in contempt and owing $244,721.52. The district court ordered appellants to sign a promissory note and two mortgages in favor of the town.
8. On remand following reversal of the October 2019 order, the town moved for sanctions compatible with civil contempt. Appellants replied that civil-contempt sanctions were impossible in these circumstances because such sanctions can be used to compel only future compliance and the nature of a short-term rental means that appellants would be complying when renters checked out. Appellants also argued that the injunction violated their right to equal protection and filed a rule 54.04 affidavit, seeking "$34,910 in costs .... [A]ppl[ying] a $390 per hour figure for [pro se] legal work."
9. On June 20, 2022, the district court filed an order for judgment. The district court found that in the June 2019 order, appellants were required to pay $118,890 in sanctions. Payment was required only if appellants continued to advertise and rent their property, which they continued to do. The district court found that in the October 2019 order, appellants were required to pay $81,870 in sanctions and serve a jail sentence if they failed to pay all sanctions. The district court found that this court reversed the $81,870 in sanctions, but not the sanctions initially imposed when appellants failed to comply with the June 2019 order.
10. The district court concluded that it did not need to exercise its contempt power because "there is an ordinary and adequate remedy for [appellant]s' refusal to pay the sanctions previously imposed." The district court concluded that the June 2019 order is binding, and appellants owe $154,276.07 ($118,890 in sanctions and $35,386.07 in attorney fees and costs). The district court entered judgment on June 20, 2022.
11. This is the third appeal in this matter. Appellants argue that, on remand, the district court failed to consider their constitutional claim; ignored their rule 54.04 affidavit; and, without an evidentiary hearing, reimposed a fine that was vacated on the last appeal. We address each claim.
12. Appellants argue that the injunction is unconstitutional because it violates equal protection. The Equal Protection Clause requires that "all persons similarly circumstanced shall be treated alike." In re Est. of Turner, 391 N.W.2d 767, 769 (Minn. 1986). There is nothing in the record showing that the town requires only appellants to abide by the code.
13. Appellants argue that the district court ignored their rule 54.04 affidavit. "A party seeking to recover costs and disbursements must serve and file a detailed application for taxation of costs and disbursements with the court administrator." Minn. R. Civ. P. 54.04(b). Appellants did not do this. The district court did not ignore their rule 54.04 affidavit.
14. Appellants argue that the district court failed to follow this court's remand instructions by reimposing vacated sanctions. "[I]t is the duty of the [district] court [on remand] to execute the mandate of this court according to its terms." Jallen v. Agre, 122 N.W.2d 207, 208 (Minn. 1963). This court reversed the October 2019 contempt order, including the $81,870 fine, and remanded for any further proceedings. On remand, the district court decided that it did not need to use its contempt power; thus, although appellants argue that this court should vacate a contempt order, there is no contempt order to vacate. The district court followed this court's remand mandate.
15. Appellants argue that there was no hearing before the district court reapplied the penalty. The district court, however, noted that there was a hearing on April 1, 2022. There is no transcript, but it was appellants' responsibility to provide this court with a transcript. See Noltimier v. Noltimier, 157 N.W.2d 530, 531 (Minn. 1968); Brown v. First Growth, Inc., 386 N.W.2d 794, 797 (Minn.App. 1986). A transcript is not necessary, however, because the district court did not reapply a penalty. This court reversed the $81,870 penalty, and this penalty was not included in the judgment.
16. This court stated that the June 2019 order is "binding." In that order, the district court imposed $118,890 in sanctions and $35,386.07 in attorney fees. This court reversed the additional $81,870 sanction imposed in the October 2019 order. The sanctions in the amount of $118,890 and the attorney fees in the amount of $35,386.07 were not challenged and were not reversed. The district court did not err by entering judgment against appellants.
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED:
1. The district court's order for judgment 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.