C. Extraordinary Remedies Revision as of 20:47, 7 October 2016 by Bfische (talk | contribs)(diff) ← Older revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff) C. Extraordinary Remedies

C. Extraordinary Remedies

Injunctive relief, writs of mandamus, and certiorari are extraordinary legal remedies which may apply to the actions, or lack thereof, of public drainage authorities but only in those circumstances where the drainage code does not provide for a statutory right of appeal and there is no other adequate remedy at law.

1. Injunctions

An injunction is an order from the court that either compels a party to take a specific action or refrain from a specific act. An injunction is referred to by the courts as an “equitable remedy,” rather than a “remedy at law.” A party is entitled to a remedy at law if the party meets all of the procedural and substantive requirements of a statute. There is no entitlement to an “equitable remedy,” however, a successful claimant can obtain an equitable remedy from a court if there is no adequate remedy at law and the court determines that the particular circumstances of the case warrant extraordinary action.

If the drainage code or another applicable statute, like the property tax objection statute in Minn. Stat. 278 for example, provide an opportunity for a party to obtain judicial review of an allegedly unlawful action, then the courts will not grant an action for injunctive relief as an alternative to utilizing the appeals statute.⁸⁹⁸

2. Mandamus

The purpose of an action for mandamus is to require a lower tribunal, board, or official to act in a matter in which it has no discretion. Where the statute requires the drainage authority to take certain action, a writ of mandamus (i.e., a court order) can be obtained from the district court requiring the drainage authority to act.

Such an action takes the form of a lawsuit in the district court. The merits of the proceeding are usually determined on motion early in the proceedings. If the case is tried on its merits, it is tried to the court and not to a jury.

Mandamus, like other extraordinary remedies, is not available where the drainage code provides an adequate remedy at law. For example, landowners are prohibited from bringing a petition for writ of mandamus in district court, seeking to compel the drainage authority to maintain a public drainage system, because any interested landowner may petition the drainage authority to repair a public drainage system under Minn. Stat. § 103E.715.⁸⁹⁹

3. Writ of Certiorari

There are numerous decisions made by a drainage authority for which the drainage code does not expressly provide statutorily for review. The functions of a county or watershed district board, however, are quasi-judicial.⁹⁰⁰ Absent an adequate method of review or legal remedy within the drainage code, judicial review of the quasi-judicial decisions of the board must be invoked by writ of certiorari.⁹⁰¹

Certiorari may be used to review only final determinations of rights, and not anticipated wrongs.⁹⁰²

The scope of review by certiorari is more limited than in a statutory appeal. Review by certiorari is not de novo. The court can only reverse an erroneous decision of the drainage authority and remand it for purposes of proceeding under correct theory. Findings of fact may be interfered with only if they are arbitrary, capricious, or unreasonable.⁹⁰³ Questions of law appearing on the face of the record only may be reviewed.⁹⁰⁴

FOOTNOTES

⁸⁹⁸ See Larson v. Freeborn Cnty., 126 N.W.2d 771, 772–73 (Minn. 1964) (holding that after completion of drainage system work, property owners affected by the drainage system proceedings could not obtain an injunction against collection of assessments levied to meet the construction expenses and were limited to statutory procedures for judicial review) (citations omitted).
⁸⁹⁹ Zaluckyj v. Rice Creek Watershed Dist., 639 N.W.2d 70, 75 (Minn. Ct. App. 2002) (holding that the repair petition procedures under Minn. Stat. § 103E.715 were available to landowners and that the repair proceedings were not futile because there was no requirement that the drainage authority conduct a cost-versus-benefit analysis when granting a petition for repair that the drainage authority determines “is necessary for the best interests of the affected property owners.” (citing Minn. Stat. § 103E.715, subd. 4(a)(1))).
⁹⁰⁰ State v. Truax, 166 N.W. 339, 340 (Minn. 1918).
⁹⁰¹ Minn. Stat. § 606.06 (2015); Dietz v. Dodge Cnty., 487 N.W.2d 237, 239 (Minn. 1992).
⁹⁰² State ex rel. Mosloski v. Martin Cnty., 80 N.W.2d 637, 639 (Minn. 1957).
⁹⁰³ Ellerbrock v. Bd. of Educ., 269 N.W.2d 858 (Minn. 1978).
⁹⁰⁴ Ellerbrock v. Bd. of Educ., 269 N.W.2d 858 (Minn. 1978).