The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About1997-10-15 Summons & Complaint - Vidana vs OPH & Mick Kaehler STATE OF MINNESOTA DISTRICT COURT COUNTY OF WASHINGTON TENTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT CASE INDICATOR: 14 J ' FILE NO. .3 James Vidana and Mary Vidana, i. Plaintiffs, vs. SUMMONS City of Oak Park Heights, a ,u municipal corporation, and Michael Kaehler, Defendants. i 1 THE STATE OF MINNESOTA TO THE ABOVE -NAMED DEFENDANTS: You are hereby summoned and required to serve upon Plaintiffs' attorney an answer to the I � Complaint in the above - entitled action, which is herewith served upon you, within twenty (20) days after service of this Summons upon you, exclusive of the day of service. If you fail to do so, judgment by default will be taken against you for the relief demanded in the Complaint. j t,...b.h. ilic,-( j Eli 5 th A. Raleigh (225654) 1 LAWSON, MARSHALL, McDONALD 1 & GALOWITZ, P.A. Attorneys for Plaintiffs 3880 Laverne Avenue North a Lake Elmo, Minnesota 55042 i • Telephone: (612) 777 -6960 i U:1CLIEN] \V lDAJA.2O\SUMMONS n STATE OF MINNESOTA DISTRICT COURT COUNTY OF WASHINGTON TENTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT CASE INDICATOR: 14 FILE NO. .I James Vidana and Mary Vidana, 4. Plaintiffs, vs. COMPLAINT City of Oak Park Heights, a ,, municipal corporation, and Michael Kaehler, Defendants. The Plaintiffs for their Complaint against the Defendants above named state and allege as ='. follows: COUNT ONE -7 1. }� The Plaintiffs, James and Mary Vidana, are now, and at all times relevant to this action were `'7� residents of the City of Oak Park Heights, County of Washington, State of Minnesota and are now .1 and at all times relevant to this action, the owners of real property and residential premises located at 14387 Upper 56th Street, Stillwater, Minnesota 55082, and more particularly described as: « Lot 7, Block 2, Swager Brothers 6th Addition. k N `I ifnc 1 II. Defendant, City of Oak Park Heights, is now and at all times relevant to this action was a municipal corporation duly organized and existing under the laws of Minnesota, located in Washington County. M. Defendant, Michael Kaehler, previously Oak Park Heights Zoning and Building Official, is a resident of the City of Oak Park Heights, County of Washington, State of Minnesota, currently residing at 14033 North 54th Street Oak Park Heights, MN 55082. 1V. On or around August 20, 1991, the City of Oak Park Heights issued Plaintiffs a building permit allowing them to remodel their existing house to turn their existing garage into a living room and their existing living room into a bedroom. Prior to issuing that building permit, the Zoning and Building Official, Michael Kaehler, performed an on -site inspection and represented to Plaintiffs that they could remodel their home because they would be allowed to build a garage onto the front of their home between the new living room and the street. Defendant Kaehler represented to the Plaintiffs that the proposed new garage would meet the set -back requirements 1 in the City of Oak Park Heights' Ordinances. Defendant Kaehler interpreted the set -back 1 ordinance for the Plaintiffs, advising them that their garage would have to be set back 30 feet from the street. The building permit for the remodeling was issued on behalf of the Defendant City based on the representations of Defendant Kaehler. V. ^ Plaintiffs relied on the representations of the Zoning and Building Official, Defendant Kaehler and, in the Fall of 1991, roceeded with their remodeling. Plaintiff's turned their garage garag P g >5 d 2 into a living room and tamed their living room into a bedroom for their son. VI. { In November of 1992 Defendant Kaehler again represented to Plaintiffs through Plaintiffs appraiser that they would be granted a permit to build a new garage onto the front of their house. VII. After the Plaintiffs completed the remodeling of their home, they applied for a building permit to build the garage Defendant Kaehler told them they could build. VIII The Defendant City refused to grant the permit, taking the position that the Vidanas' proposed garage does not meet the set -back requirement of 30 feet from the lot line as required by the City of Oak Park Heights Ordinance 401.15.C. IX. The Plaintiffs applied for a variance on May 8, 1997, requesting a variance of 20 feet from the 30 foot setback requirement. X. The City of Oak Park Heights denied the Plaintiffs' request for a setback variance for the } reasons set out in the City Counsel Minutes for June 10, 1997. XL Defendant Kaehler in his position as Zoning and Building Official owed Plaintiffs a duty of due care in inspecting their property, advising them of the facts and law regarding their compliance and future compliance with zoning ordinances, and issuing a building permit. Due care, included making accurate representations with respect to whether Plaintiffs proposed plans 1 3 • A 1 would meet the set -back requirement and with respect to whether Plaintiffs would be granted a permit to build the new garage. XII. Defendant City owed a duty of due care to Plaintiffs in issuing a permit. y X111. Defendants failed to exercise such care in negligently representing to Plaintiffs they ■ 9 would meet the set -back ordinance if they added a garage onto the front of their house and in I negligently representing to the Plaintiffs that they would be granted a building permit to build that garage. � i ,1 XIV. Defendants failure to exercise such care was the proximate cause of the injury alleged S herein. The Plaintiffs remodeled their house in 1991 -1992 in reliance on Defendants' representation that they would be issued a permit to build a new garage onto the front of their 1 P Y house. XV. J Because the City Council Denied Plaintiffs' application for a permit to build a new garage, and because the City Council denied Plaintiffs' request for a variance in the set back requirements, Plaintiffs were damaged by Defendants negligence. The damages sustained by the 1 Plaintiff include the value of the labor and materials used in performing the remodeling of their 1 home and the value of the labor and materials that will have to be expended turning their house I back into the condition it was before it was remodeled so that they may have a garage on their property. The estimated amount of damages sustained by Plaintiff is $34,000 plus attorney fees 4 c i i and costs associated with this litigation. XVI. Plaintiffs gave Defendants sufficient notice of their claim. XVII. I i Defendant City is vicariously liable for any negligence of Defendant Kaehler. r COUNT TWO I. Plaintiffs hereby reallege each and every allegation of Cut One herein. i i II. `'■ Defendant City owes a duty of due care to the citizens of Oak Park Heights to properly train and supervise its officials, including its Zoning and Building Official. ;, III. Defendant City failed to exercise such care in the training and supervising of its Zoning ;i and Building Official, Defendant Kaehler. y,, N. Defendants failure to exercise due care in the training and supervising of its Zoning and Building Official caused Defendant Kaehler to make misrepresentations that were relied on by `;i '1 Plaintiffs. V. Plaintiffs sustained damages as a result of Defendants negligence. ' 5 . r i 4 I I COUNT THREE • I. Plaintiffs hereby reallege each and every allegation of Count One herein. 4 II. Defendants negligently and wrongfully induced Plaintiffs to rely on their misrepresentations that Plaintiffs would meet the set -back requirement and that Plaintiffs would ` be granted a permit to build a garage on the front of their house. i TH. Both Defendant Kaehler and Defendant City knew or should have known the 1 ri representations were false. '" IV. Defendants intended that the Plaintiffs act upon their representations. 1 V. :j Plaintiffs reasonably relied in good faith on Defendants misrepresentations to Plaintiffs' detriment. 1 VI. '': Unless Defendants are estopped from denying Plaintiffs request for a building permit to 1 build the garage onto the front of their house, Plaintiffs will suffer damages as a result of their reliance in good faith on Defendants misrepresentations. .r w 6 A . COUNT FOUR I. Plaintiffs hereby reallege each and every allegation of Count One herein. II The denial of Plaintiffs' request for a variance as to the set back requirement was A arbitrary and unreasonable and was not for the purpose of promoting the public health, safety, morals or general welfare. III. The reasons cited by the Council for denying Plaintiffs' request for a variance were invalid. In view of Plaintiffs' unique situation, and the lack of objection to the variance by the Plaintiffs' neighbors, a variance should have been granted. Refusing to grant a variance because, "the Council may as well just revoke the 30 foot setback requirement if they approve the variance because many Oak Park Heights residents have converted their garages into other rooms and they would all be coming to the Council requesting variances to build garages" denied Plaintiffs due process, and was contrary to the Equal Protection Clause in that other variances have been granted by the Defendant City. IV. That the Defendant's application of the set back ordinance and application of the ordinance permitting variances, was contrary to the laws of the State of Minnesota and in violation of the provisions of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the Constitution of the United States and Sections 2, 7, and 13 of Article I and Sections 1 and 2 of Article XII oldie 7 Constitution of the State of Minnesota. WHEREFORE, the Plaintiff prays for Judgment of the Court as follows: 1. Judgment against the Defendants and each of them in the amount of 534,000.00 together with reasonable attorney fees and costs and expenses incurred in bringing this litigation. IN THE ALTERNATIVE, Plaintiffs pray for a Declaratory Judgment of this Court as follows: 1. That the Defendant City is estopped from denying Plaintiffs request for a permit to build a garage onto the front of their house as they were told they could do by Defendant Koehler, or in the alternative, 2. That the actions of the Defendant City in denying Plaintiffs' Application for a variance and in applying the ordinances and regulations of Oak Park Heights to Plaintiffs' property are unreasonable, arbitrary, capricious, discriminatory and without justification in law and fact. 3 That the said action of Defendant City constitutes an abuse of discretion, unlawful discrimination and a taking of the Plaintiffs' land without just compensation, all contrary to the provisions of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the Constitution of the United States and Sections 2, 7 and 13 of Article 1 and Sections 1 and 2 of Article XII of the Constitution of the State of Minnesota. 4. That the Plaintiffs are entitled to a 20 foot variance from the 30 foot set back requirement of Ordinance No. 401.15.C. 5. That the Defendant City be ordered to grant the variance requested by Plaintiffs 8 1 r 1 i forthwith. 6. That Defendant City is ordered to pay Plaintiffs reasonable attorney fees and any 1 costs and expenses incurred in bringing this litigation. 1 1 7. For such other and further relief as the Court deems just and equitable. Dated this 1,5 day of 1997. Elizab A. Raleigh (225654), 1 LAW ON, MARSHALL, McDONALD & GALOWITZ, P.A. Attorneys for Plaintiffs .'1 3880 Laverne Avenue North Lake Elmo, Minnesota 55042 i Telephone: (612) 777 -6960 ie S , :i 1 a -,, 7 ,_ . . 1 _.1 9 '.::1 AI 1 1,7 `47 i i V' iV• JI 1r • .••• _ • • • ACKNOWLEDGMENT { The undersigned hereby acknowledges that costs, disbursements and reasonable attorney and witness fees may be awarded pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Section 549.21, Subd. 2, to the party against whom the allegations in the pleading are asserted. Dated: /0//.5 1997. Eli eth A. Raleigh i • 10 1 STATE OF MINNESOTA ) )ss. VERIFICATION COUNTY OF WASHINGTON ) Mary Vidana, being first duly sworn upon oath, deposes and says that she is one of the Plaintiffs in the above - entitled action; that she has read the foregoing Complaint, knows the contents thereof and that the same is true and correct, except as to those matters therein stated on information and belief and as to those matters, she believes them to be true. 1 Vidana Subscribed and sworn to before me this / / da y of , 1997. >;�a; , ' A. RALEIGH • IYh Comma,, ■ , , " . , 31 2000 / I N • Public ' 1