Opinion
A23-0024
07-12-2023
Galen Tronnes, Respondent,. v. Valerie Tronnes Appellant, Vickie Mjelde Defendant, Angie Rhoads, Defendant.
Norman County District Court File No. 54-CV-20-217
Considered and decided by Wheelock, Presiding Judge; Cochran, Judge; and Frisch, Judge.
ORDER OPINION
Jennifer L. Frisch Judge
BASED ON THE FILE, RECORD, AND PROCEEDINGS, AND BECAUSE:
1. Vernon Tronnes conveyed certain property located in Norman County (the property) by quitclaim deed to his four children as tenants in common, including appellant Valerie Tronnes and respondent Galen Tronnes. Each sibling owns an undivided one-fourth interest in the property.
Because appellant, respondent, and their father share a last name, we refer to the parties by their first names. Defendant Angie Rhoads was identified as the personal representative of the estate of a now-deceased sibling, Ardyce Wambold (also known as Ardys Wambold). We refer to appellant, respondent, and the two defendants as "siblings."
The deed does not specify the precise interest each sibling owns. Accordingly, their shares are presumed to be equal. A.C. Freeman, Cotenancy and Partition § 105, at 172 (2d ed. 1886); see also Neumann v. Anderson, 916 N.W.2d 41, 51 (Minn.App. 2018) (citing Cotenancy and Partition to interpret Minnesota's partition statute based on Minnesota Supreme Court citations to the treatise), rev. denied (Minn. July 17, 2018).
2. The property is described as:
a. Parcel No. 18-7027000:
The Northeast Quarter of the Southwest Quarter (NE¼SW¼); Government Lot Five (5), EXCEPTING THEREFROM the North One Hundred Seven[ty]-Seven and Eight Hundredths (177.08') feet of the above entitled description; and Government Lot Six (6), EXCEPTING the East Nine Hundred Twenty-Four (924') feet of the South Nine Hundred Ninety (990') feet thereof; all in Section One (1) Township One Hundred Forty-Six (146) North, Range Forty-Nine (49) West of the Fifth Principal Meridian in Norman County, Minnesota, containing 81.31 acres, more or less.
b. Parcel No. 18-7030000:
The South Half (S½) of Lot One (1) in Section Two (2) Township One Hundred Forty-Six (146) North, Range Forty-Nine (49) West of the Fifth Principal Meridian in Norman County, Minnesota, containing 19.64 acres, more or less.
The property totals approximately 100 acres of land over the two parcels and consists of about 40 acres of tillable farmland and 60 acres of woodland. The siblings rented out the tillable farmland.
3. Galen and the other siblings approached Valerie about selling their interests in the property to Valerie or buying Valerie's interest in the property, but no agreement was reached. A third party offered to purchase the property for $215,000, and subsequently increased the offer to $235,000. The siblings did not sell the property to the third party.
4. In August 2020, Galen filed a partition action, requesting "a sale of [the property] as a physical partition cannot be achieved without great prejudice to the owners." Valerie answered the complaint and asked the district court to partition the property in kind.
5. The district court appointed referees, who then prepared a report regarding partition of the property. The referees opined that the property could not be equitably partitioned in kind without great prejudice to the owners. The referees recommended that the property be sold through a real estate agent or an online auction site, but that the parties should receive a first right to purchase as follows:
The undersigned, believe that if any of the parties wish to purchase the property from the other owner that they should be allowed to purchase both parcel[s] for two hundred thirty-five thousand and no/100 dollars ($235,000). Therefore, a first right to purchase should be granted to any of the parties for this purchase price without any further actions taken.
6. Galen moved the district court to confirm the referees' report. Valerie opposed the motion and requested an evidentiary hearing to "dispute the findings made in the Referees' Report to determine contributions and assess the referees' expenses and fees against [Galen]." In a February 14, 2022 order, the district court granted Galen's motion to confirm the referees' report and denied Valerie's request for an evidentiary hearing. The district court confirmed the referees' recommendation to grant the parties a first right to purchase "to any of the parties for the purchase price of $235,000.00 without any further actions taken."
7. Following the district court's order, Galen made offers to purchase each of the other siblings' interest in the property for $58,750, or one-fourth of the $235,000 purchase price, in exchange for a quitclaim deed. Valerie refused the offer and indicated that she was seeking financing to exercise her first right to purchase. Valerie's counsel first asserted to Galen's counsel that the amount Galen owed to Valerie was unclear, and later asserted that they interpreted the amount owed to Valerie under the first right to purchase to be $78,333.33, or one-third the $235,000 purchase price.
8. Galen moved the district court for an order in part demanding Valerie to show cause "as to why [she] refuse[s] to obey the Court's February 14, 2022, Order" and for attorney fees and costs associated with bringing the partition action and subsequent motions. Valerie then moved the district court for an evidentiary hearing to determine "[t]he costs, charges, and disbursement in this action" and "[a]n accounting of the parties' rights and interests in the purchase price of the subject property."
9. In a December 7, 2022 order, the district court found that the purchase price was $235,000 for "the real property," that there were four "heirs" to the property, and that each "heir" was entitled to $58,750. The district court also granted Galen first right to purchase the property "based upon the initial filing by [Galen] and having successfully purchased [Vickie's] share of interest in the property." The district court found that Valerie had "ample time" to secure funding but that "nothing ha[d] been brought forward except that she want[ed] a new accounting of the rights and the interest of the parties completed."
The district court declared Galen first right to the property and ordered Galen to pay Valerie $58,750 and Valerie to convey a quitclaim deed to Galen for her interest in the property. The district court discharged the referees and ordered each party responsible for its own costs and attorney fees. Valerie and Galen both appeal.
10. "An action to partition real property is governed by chapter 558 of the Minnesota Statutes." Neumann, 916 N.W.2d at 47. We review decisions of a district court in dividing assets in partition for an abuse of discretion. Glenwood Inv. Props., L.L.C. v. Carroll A. Britton Fam. Tr., 765 N.W.2d 112, 117 (Minn.App. 2009). "On appeal in a partition action, a district court's findings of fact will not be set aside absent a showing of clear error." Id.
11. We first note that to the extent that the parties challenge the district court's February 14, 2022 order, such a challenge is untimely and beyond our consideration. Minn. Stat. § 558.215 (2022) (setting the time for appeal for an order partitioning property by sale for 30 days after the making and filing of the order); Glenwood, 765 N.W.2d at 116-17.
12. Valerie argues that the district court abused its discretion by determining that the amount Galen owed Valerie was equivalent to one-fourth of the purchase price of the property, $58,750, representing her one-fourth interest in the property, rather than determining that Galen owed her one-third of the purchase price of the property, $78,333.33, representing an equal allocation of the purchase price between the three siblings who were not purchasing the property. Because the record reflects that Valerie did not raise this specific assertion to the district court, we consider it forfeited and decline to consider it. Thiele v. Stich, 425 N.W.2d 580, 582 (Minn. 1988) (directing that a reviewing court may only consider issues litigated before the district court, which includes considering only the theories litigated before the district court).
13. Even so, a partial owner of property may purchase it at a partition sale, and their interest in the property may be accounted for in the purchase price of that property. Minn. Stat. § 558.19 (2022) ("When a party entitled to a share in the property . . . becomes a purchaser, the referees may take the receipt for so much of the proceeds of the sale as belong to the entitled party."); 6A Steven J. Kirsch, Minnesota Practice § 54.51 (3d ed. 1990) ("[A] party entitled to a share in the property, or the owner of a lien thereon, may become a purchaser. Such purchasers may turn over to the referees receipts for their share, or for their liens, as a part of the purchase price."). The interpretation by the district court of the allocation of the purchase price of the property for $235,000 accounted for each sibling's one-fourth interest in the property, including Galen's equal one-fourth interest. Thus, the district court's determination that Galen owed Valerie $58,750 in exchange for her interest in the property was consistent with the law and therefore not an abuse of discretion.
14. Valerie next asserts that the district court erred by denying her motion for an evidentiary hearing to determine costs, charges, and disbursement in light of an allegedly unexplained rental-income loss for the Tronnes Family Farms partnership. "The costs, charges, and disbursement of partition shall be paid by the parties respectively entitled to share in the land, and the amounts to be paid by each shall be determined by the court, and specified in the final judgment." Minn. Stat. § 558.10 (2022). We review a district court's assessment of fees and costs in a partition action for an abuse of discretion. Kuller v. Kuller, 109 N.W.2d 561, 564 (Minn. 1961). Because chapter 558 of the Minnesota Statutes does not obligate a district court to hold a hearing before determining the amount of costs, charges, and disbursement of the partition to be paid by each party entitled to a share in the land, it was not an abuse of discretion for the district court to deny Valerie's motion for an evidentiary hearing. Cf. Neumann, 916 N.W.2d at 47 (stating that partition actions are governed by chapter 558). And to the extent that Valerie asserts that the district court's determination that each party should be responsible for their own costs is based on a clearly erroneous finding that the rental-income loss was not a payment of Galen's costs or attorney fees associated with the partition, we conclude that such a finding was not clearly erroneous because Valerie presented no evidence to the district court showing that the rental-income loss was a payment of Galen's costs or attorney fees.
15. Galen asserts that the district court erred by denying his motion for attorney fees under Minn. Stat. § 558.10. Attorney fees generally "are not recoverable in litigation unless there is a specific contract permitting or a statute authorizing such recovery." Dunn v. Nat'l Beverage Corp., 745 N.W.2d 549, 554 (Minn. 2008). Minn. Stat. § 558.10 provides that "[t]he costs, charges, and disbursements of partition shall be paid by the parties respectively entitled to share in the land, and the amounts to be paid by each shall be determined by the court, and specified in the final judgment." Section 558.10 allows a district court to award attorney fees to plaintiffs "where the final result [of a partition action] is of benefit to all parties." Kuller, 109 N.W.2d at 563. But "where the action is adversary and where it can be fairly established that the results thereof were of no substantial benefit to defendants therein, such attorney's fees should be denied." Id. We review a district court's assessment of fees and costs in a partition action for an abuse of discretion. Id. at 564.
16. Galen does not seem to point to any specific error by the district court, but instead generally asserts that Valerie engaged in unreasonable delay tactics and refused to comply with district court orders without justification. We do not presume error by the district court; the party asserting error has the burden of showing it. Horodenski v. Lyndale Green Townhome Ass'n, 804 N.W.2d 366, 372 (Minn.App. 2011) (citing Midway Ctr. Assocs. v. Midway Ctr., Inc., 237 N.W.2d 76, 78 (Minn. 1975)). And we do not read Campbell v. Larson, No. A20-1068, 2021 WL 1733371 (Minn.App. May 3, 2021), rev. denied (Minn. July 20, 2021), which Galen cites in support of his assertion of error, as standing for the proposition that it is an abuse of discretion not to award attorney fees even if there are facts in the record that could support such an award. Thus, we decline to conclude that the district court abused its discretion by denying Galen's motion for attorney fees.
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED:
1. The district court's order and judgment are 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.