minnesota supreme court order

7/27/2019 Minnesota Supreme Court order

1/5

S'TAI'E OF MINNIISOTAIN SUPREME COURT

At4-0029

ln re Doug Mann, t.inda Mann. David TilsenDoug Mann. Linda Mann. David Tilscn.

oppe?ffi|?%Bunr.s,;AN 2 1 2Ct4FILED

Petitioners.vs..lirn Schorvalter. Cornrnissioner ofMinncsota Managcrnent and Budget.

Respondent.

ORDERPER CURIAM.

On Januarl' 10.2014. petitioners Doug Mann. Linda Mann, and David Tilsen t'ileda petition fttr a r 'rit of prohibition rvith this court. requesting an order that prohibitsrespondent Jirn Schou'alter. Cornmissioner of Minnesota Management and Bud,qet. tiornprocecding rvith the sale and issuance of certain appropriation bonds to pav fbr theconstruction of a stadiurn. as authorizedby Minn. Stat. S 164.965 (20t2). petitionerscontcud that the local salcs tax revenucs dedicated by thc city o[ Minneapolis to rcpay aportion of those bonds violates Articlc X, Section t of the Minnesota Constitution. See


2/5

Mirrn. Stat. g 473J.1 1, subd.4(b) (2012) ( 'l'he city'of Minncapolis share shall be limitcdto no rnorc than a S 150.000.000 contribution lor construction ); see also Minn. Stat.

dcposit to thc general tund citl, tax revcnues necessar)' to meet the city's contribution tctstadiurn financing).

Respondent Schou,alter opposes the petition. arguing that it is barred by' thedoctrinc of' laches. that thc court lacks .jurisdiction ovcr the petition and the relicfrequestcd. and that the lcgislation authorizing the City's contribution to the stadiurncrtnstruction costs through the usc of locaI sales tax rcvenues is constitutional.

l'he Minnesota Sports Iracilitics Authoritl'. u,hich has a contractual agrecmentu'ith respondcnt Schou'alter fbr the usc ol'the bond procceds. moved to intervene and torcquire the petitioncrs to post a suretl, bond in the amount of $49.7 rnillion. pursuant toMinn. Stat. $ 562.02 (2012). On Januar), 14. 2014, u'c issued an ordcr thal. granted thcSports Facilities Authoritl,'s motion to intcr'r'ene, and dirccted the partics to lilernernoranda that addressed rvhether this court's original .iurisdiction is propcrly' invokedbv thc pctition and u'hethcr thc pctitioners can obtain the relief thc1, sought through apctition lbr a rvrit ol'prohibition. On Januarv 16. u'e received Lhe parties' memoranda.

Itely'ing on thc lcgislative provision that conl'ers original.iurisdiction on this courtto validate thc stadiurll appropriation bonds. petitioners arBuc that thcy' properly' invokedthis court's.jurisdiction as soon as respondent announced. on.[anuarr'8.2014. details on


3/5

the salc and issuancc of those bonds. &e Minn. Stat. Q 16n.965. subd. l0(c) ( 'l'hcMinnesoLa Suprcrne Court shall havc original .iurisdiction to detennine the validation ofappropriation bonds and all matLers connccted thereu'ith. ). Petitioners acknon'ledge thaLsection 16A.965 authorizes respondent to decide rvhethcr or not to initiate validationproceedings belbre this court. See Minn. Stat.8 164.965. subd. l0(a) ( Appropriationbonds issucd under this section mat' be validatcd in the rnanner providcd by' thissubdivision. ) (ernphasis added). Becausc the cornrnissioner did not initiate bondvalidation procccdings. rcspondcnt and inten,enor contcnd that this courL's original.jurisdiction \\'as not propcrlf invokcd b1'thc pctition lbr a uriL of'prohibition.

To the extent the petition asserts a claim under Minn. Stat. $ 164.965. this courthas original .iurisdiction only to determine the validation of appropriation bonds and allmatters connected therervith.^' Id.. subd. l0(c). '['he statute does not confer original.jurisdiction on thc court to rcsolve all challengcs to lcgislation authorizing the use ofappropriation bonds. Furthcr. thc partics agrcc that the specific proceeding over rvhichthis court has original jurisdicl.ion. a bond validation proceeding. has not been initiated..See Minn. Stat. Q 16A.965. subd. l0(d)-(e) ( tAl cornplaint shalI be filed b1,thecornrnissioncr uith this court to dcterrnine the cornrnissioncr's authorit)' to issucappropriaLit-rn bonds and belbre doing so. Lhe cornrnissioner shall take action providing[irr the issuancc of thc bonds). Accordingly'. to the extent thc petitioners seek relief


4/5

under Minn. Stat. $ 16,4..965, rve hold that such a clairn falls outside our originaljurisdiction.

In addition to citing Minn. Stat. $ 16A.965, petitioners rely on our authority toissue writs and argue that they are entitled to a rvrit of prohibition. See Minn. Stat.$ 480.04 (2012) (authorizing this court to issue . . . rvrits of . . . prohibition ). To theextent the petition relies on this court's original .iurisdiction over u,rits ol- prohibition, arvrit of prohibition rnav not issue because the petitioners have not demonstrated thatthey'do not have an adequate rernedy at law. We have long recognized that [a]s aprerequisite to the issuance of a writ of prohibition. the party seeking it must show that hewill sutter an injury lbr rvhich there is no adequate rernedy at law. Craigmile v.Sorenson.24l Minn. 222, 231. 62 N.W.2d 846.852 (1954).

Petitioners argue that they, have no adcquate legal rcrnedy, tbr thc allcgedconstitutional violation because the cornmissioner intends to proceed u'ith the sale andissuance of thc appropriation bonds u,ithout using the statutorv validation proceeding.But the district courts havc jurisdiction over constitutional challenges to mattersinvolving taxation. Minn. Stat. $ 484.01. subd. l(1) (2012); see also lMalker v. Zuehlke,642 N.W.2d 745,747 (Minn. 2002) (reviewing procedural history in district court andcourt of appeals for clairn under Minn. Const. art. X, $ 1). Petitioners filed an action indistrict court and they have a rnattcr pending in the Minnesota Court ot'Appeals. Finally.the absence o[' bond validation proceedings under Minn. Stat. I 16,{.965 does not


5/5

dcmonstrate that petitioners lack an adequate remedy at larv sufficient to invoke thiscourt's original jurisdiction. Based on this record. we hold that petitioners have notdemonstrated that thel' do not have an adequate rernedy at lau'.r

Based on the foregoing analysis. we conclude that the petition must be disrnissed.Based upon all the flles. records. and proceedings herein.IT IS FIIIREBY ORDERED THAI':1. 1'hc petition fbr a writ of prohibition to restrain respondent Jirn Schowaltcr.

Cornrnissioner of Minnesota Management and Budget. from proceeding w'ith the sale andissuance of ccrtain stadiurn appropriation bonds pursuant to Minn. Stat. $ 164.965 (2012)bc. and the sarne is. dismissed.

2. '['hc rnotion ol' the Minnesota Sports Facilities Authority to require thcposting of a surety bond pursuant to Minn. Stat. $ 562.02 (2012) be. and the same is.denied as moot.

Dated: January 2I, 2014PAGE. J.. took no part in the considcration or decision of this case.

' In using the phrase adequate rernedy at law, lve do not imply that petitionersItave stated, or could state in another procceding, a clairn upon which rclief could begranted.

minnesota supreme court order

Documents