Agenda - Council - 11/24/2009 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

1. Relationship between the parties The first Dahlberg factor considers the nature and background ofthe relationship between the parties before the dispute that gave rise to therequest for relief. Upper Midwest Sales Co. , 577 N.W.2d at 240.When Haefele acquired the property in 1985, the property had nonconforming - usestatus. Because of the nonconforming -use status, state law allows use of theproperty as a group home for seven to sixteen persons. The nonconformingzoning status continued undisturbed until the city's 1998 finding ofabandonment. The purpose of a temporary injunction is "to preserve the status quo untiladjudication of the case on its merits." Miller v. Foley , 317N.W.2d 710, 712 (Minn. 1982) (citing Pickerign v. Pasco Mktg.,Inc. , 303 Minn. 442, 444, 228 N.W.2d 562, 564 (1975)). The citycomplains that the temporary injunction allows for a new use altering thestatus quo. The city's argument is based on its position that Haefele in factabandoned the nonconforming- use. Whether this is the case is the subject ofthe dispute. The temporary injunction preserves the status quo in that itallows respondents to continue to use the property's nonconforming status. Theuse of the property as a seven- to sixteen- person group home is not a new usealtering the status quo. The city asserts that the status quo should be appraised from the time thedistrict court considered the issuance of the temporary injunction, and, atthat time, the status quo was that the nonconforming -use status had beenabandoned. The Minnesota Supreme Court has explained that: The object of a temporary injunction is to maintain the matter in controversyin its existing condition until judgment so that the effect of the judgmentshall not be impaired by the acts of the parties during the litigation. Pickerign , 303 Minn. at 446, 228 N.W.2d at 565. Pickerign suggests that the proper date for appraising the statusquo could be the date on which the dispute arose or the date on which legalaction commenced. 303 Minn. at 446 -47, 228 N.W.2d at 565 -66. The city'sassertion that the status quo must be evaluated from the date on which theinjunction is considered is without legal support. Regardless, even if the temporary injunction disturbed the status quo, wewould affirm the temporary injunction nonetheless. A court "has the power toshape relief in a manner which protects the basic rights of the parties, evenif in some cases it requires disturbing the status quo." North StarState Bank of Roseville v. North Star Bank Minnesota , 361 N.W.2d 889,895 (Minn. App. 1985) (quotation omitted), review denied (Minn.Apr. 26, 1985). In North Star , this court determined the lowercourt did not abuse its discretion when fashioning relief that protected theparties' investments. Id. at 896. In this case, the districtcourt issued the temporary injunction to protect respondents' investment inusing the property as a group home for seven to sixteen residents. 2. Relative hardship The second Dahlberg factor considers the harm to be suffered bythe plaintiff if the temporary restraint is denied as compared to thatinflicted on defendant if the injunction issues pending trial. UpperMidwest Sales Co. , 577 N.W.2d at 240. The district court