No.l'e
`
`73
`
`3m Tbe,
`'upremt Court of the Nuiteb 6tatto
`
`GENE RECHTZIGEL,
`
`V.
`
`CITY OF APPLE VALLEY,
`
`Petitioner,
`
`FILED
`
`1
`APR 29 2019
`'SUPRIE
`OFFIC OF THE CLERK I
`EME CO UT U S
`Respondent.
`
`On Petition For A Writ Of Certiorari
`To The Minnesota Court Of Appeals
`
`PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI
`
`GENE RECHTZIGEL
`Pro Se
`6533 160th Street West
`Apple Valley, MN 55124
`(612-618-0780)
`
`RECEIVED
`MAY 1- 2019
`OFFICE OF THE CLERK
`SUPREME COURT, U.S. I
`
`
`
`73
`
`3m Tbe,
`'upremt Court of the Nuiteb 6tatto
`
`GENE RECHTZIGEL,
`
`V.
`
`CITY OF APPLE VALLEY,
`
`Petitioner,
`
`FILED
`
`1
`APR 29 2019
`'SUPRIE
`OFFIC OF THE CLERK I
`EME CO UT U S
`Respondent.
`
`On Petition For A Writ Of Certiorari
`To The Minnesota Court Of Appeals
`
`PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI
`
`GENE RECHTZIGEL
`Pro Se
`6533 160th Street West
`Apple Valley, MN 55124
`(612-618-0780)
`
`RECEIVED
`MAY 1- 2019
`OFFICE OF THE CLERK
`SUPREME COURT, U.S. I
`
`
`
`QUESTIONS PRESENTED
`
`Did the Government deprive Petitioner of Liberty,
`without Due Process of Law?
`Did the Government deprive Petitioner of Prop-
`erty, without Due Process of Law?
`Did the Government deprive Petitioner of a Trial
`by Jury, without Due Process of Law?
`
`
`
`11
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`Page
`QUESTIONS PRESENTED ................................i
`OPINIONS BELOW.............................................1
`JURISDICTION...................................................2
`3
`CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISIONS INVOLVED
`STATEMENT OF THE CASE................................5
`22
`REASONS FOR GRANTING THE PETITION
`CONCLUSION.....................................................39
`
`APPENDIX
`Minnesota Supreme Court, Order, January 29,
`2019 ..................................................................App. 1
`Minnesota Court of Appeals, Order Opinion,
`November 13, 2018...........................................App. 2
`Dakota County District Court, Findings of Fact,
`Order and Memorandum, October 3, 2017.....App. 10
`Dakota County District Court, Order and Mem-
`orandum, January 19,2018 ........................... App. 15
`Petition for Review in the Minnesota Supreme
`Court, December 13, 2018..............................App. 24
`
`
`
`111
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`Page
`
`CASES
`Adam v. Hoover, Docket No. 114847, Michigan
`Court of Appeals, November 2, 1992 ........................8
`Amati v. Haraden, 280 Minn. 399, 159 N.W2d
`907(1968) .................................................................. 7
`C.E. Pope Equity Trust v. United States L Stradley,
`818 F.2d 696 (1987) .................................................25
`City of Mankato v. Hilgers, 313 N.W2d 610
`(Minn. 1981) ............................................................38
`City of Minneapolis v. Wilkin, 30 Minn. 140, 14
`N.W. 581 (1883) .......................................................17
`City of St. Paul v. Nickl, 42 Minn. 262, 44 N.W.
`59(1890) .................................................................. 17
`Curtis v. St. Paul S & T F RR, 20 Minn. 28 (Gil.
`19)(1873) ................................................................. 21
`Greene v. McElroy, 360 U.S. 474, 79 S. Ct. 1400,
`3 L. Ed. 2d 1377 (1959)...........................................27
`In re Improvement of Third Street, St. Paul, 185
`Minn. 170 (Minn. 1932)...........................................18
`Leiendecker v. Asian Women United of Minne-
`sota,A16-0360 (May 24, 2017)................................22
`M.C.D.A. v. Golden Spike, Inc., 536 N.W2d 30
`(1995).................................................................36,37
`Mary Elizabeth Jackson v. Samuel William
`Bownas, et al., No. E2004-01893-COA-R3-CV,
`Court of Appeals of Tennessee, at Knoxville,
`Filed June 21, 2005...................................................8
`
`
`
`lv
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES - Continued
`
`Page
`
`Minneapolis St. PR & D Elec. Traction Co. v.
`Goodspeed, 128 Minn. 66,150 N.W. 222 (1914).......21
`Mohrman & Kaardal, PA., Plaintiff v. Gene
`Rechtzigel individually, Gene Rechtzigel as
`Personal Representative for Estate of Frank
`Rechtzigel and as Trustee of any Trust there-
`under, Gene Rechtzigel as Trustee for the Eve-
`lyn I. Rechtzigel Trust; Gene Rechtzigel as
`Trustee of the Frank H. Rechtzigel Charitable
`Trust Remainder Unitrust and Rex Rentals-
`FR.R., Defendants...................................................24
`Mulkey v. Reitman, 64 Cal. 2d 529, 50 Cal. Rptr.
`881, 413 P.2d 825 (1966),judgment affd, 387
`U.S. 369, 87 S. Ct. 1627, 18 L. Ed. 2d 830
`(1967).......................................................................26
`State ex rel. Doerrler v. District Court, 44 N.W.
`59, 42 Minn. 262 (1890) ..........................................18
`State v. Frisby, 260 Minn. 70, 108 N.W.2d 769
`(1961).......................................................................38
`State v. Jude, 258 Minn. 43, 102 N.W2d 501
`(1960)...........................................................22, 31, 32
`State v. McAndrews, 286 Minn. 115,175 N.W.2d
`492(1970) .............. I .................................................. 38
`State v. Pearson, 260 Minn. 477, 110 N.W.2d 206
`(1961).................................................................21,38
`
`
`
`V
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES - Continued
`
`Page
`
`CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISIONS
`Const. Amend. I ......................................................3, 35
`Const. Amend. IV..........................................................3
`Const. Amend. V ...............................................3,251 35
`Const. Amend. VII ..................................................4, 35
`Const. Amend. XIV ...............................4, 24, 25, 26, 35
`Minn. Const. Art. I, Sec. 2.............................................4
`Minn. Const. Art. I, Sec. 4.................................4, 25, 35
`Minn. Const. Art. I, Sec. 7.............................................5
`Minn. Const. Art. I, Sec. 8.............................................5
`
`STATUTES
`Minn. Stat. 117.086 ....................................5, 6, 7, 8, 18
`Minn. Stat. 117.115 ..............................................18, 28
`Minn. Stat. 117.145 ............................................passim
`Minn. Stat. 117.165 ....................................................19
`Minn. Stat. 117.175 ....................................................18
`Minn. Stat. 559.25 ........................................................7
`Minn. Stat. 645.17 ........................................................5
`
`
`
`1
`
`OPINIONS BELOW
`The Decree of A18-0493, entered on January 29,
`2019, by the State of Minnesota Supreme Court stated
`that Petition for Review of Decision of Court of Appeals
`for further review be, and the same is, denied.
`The Decree of A18-0493, entered on Nov. 13, 2018,
`by the Minnesota Court of Appeals stated that the dis-
`trict court's order is affirmed and Petitioners appeal is
`a second appeal on the same case; which is a misrepre-
`sentation of law and facts, because this instant appeal
`is a new appeal of Minn. Statute 117.145 which never
`was appealed before. The truth of the matter proves
`this to be a new appeal concerning only the commis-
`sioners' award, and the only issue in trial de novo be-
`fore the jury is the amount of damages, and the jury
`must measure the damages to the same land that the
`commissioners did. The appellate court should not be
`substituting its own judgment for that of the jury! The
`appellate court is stating that the law of the case, res
`judicata, or collateral estoppel bars an appeal concern-
`ing the constitutional right of having a trial by jury to
`grant "just compensation" concerning the amount of
`damages the condemnation "taking" caused. This issue
`of damages has never been up on appeal before and is
`a constitutional granted right to Petitioner (Rechtzi-
`gel) concerning a trial de novo trial by jury of amount
`of damages.
`The Trial Court Order of 19HA-CV-14-1763 en-
`tered on Oct. 3, 2017 which stated that the City of Ap-
`ple Valley's motion to dismiss is granted, the "notice of
`
`
`
`2
`
`appeal" is hereby dismissed for failure to properly
`serve all respondents as required by Minn. Stat.
`117.145, claims are dismissed, motion for change of
`venue is moot, and motion to dismiss is denied. The
`trial court order misrepresents the law and facts as af-
`ter the filing and mailing of the Notice of Appeal,
`Rechtzigel is the Plaintiff and the City of Apple Valley
`is the Defendant as is stated in "common law." It ap-
`pears the court rubber stamped the City of Apple Val-
`ley motion to dismiss without requiring any burden of
`proof, without any testimony, without any evidence of
`proof from the City of Apple Valley a constitutional
`right to a trial de novo before a trial by jury concerning
`the amount of damages of "just compensation" was
`denied Petitioner, Plaintiff Rechtzigel.
`The Trial Court Order of 19HA-CV-14-1763 en-
`tered on Jan. 19, 2018 stated that Respondent Rechtzi-
`gel's motions are hereby denied in their entirety.
`Petitioner's Petition for Review of Decision of
`Court of Appeals in No. A18-0493, Dated December 13,
`2018.
`
`4
`
`JURISDICTION
`The judgment/order of the Minnesota Supreme
`Court was entered on January 29, 2019 (the entry
`date) from which a timely 90 days for petitioning a Re-
`view on Certiorari is by April 29, 2019. The jurisdiction
`of this Court is invoked under 28 U.S.C. § 1257(a).
`
`
`
`3
`
`CONSTITUTIONAL AND
`STATUTORY PROVISIONS
`Amendment I
`Congress shall make no law respecting an establish-
`ment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise
`thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the
`press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble,
`and to petition the Government for a redress of griev-
`ances.
`
`Amendment IV
`The right of the people to be secure in their persons,
`houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable
`searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no
`Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, sup-
`ported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly de-
`scribing the place to be searched, and the persons or
`things to be seized.
`
`Amendment V
`No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or oth-
`erwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or in-
`dictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the
`land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual
`service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any
`person be subject for the same offence to be twice put
`in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any
`criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be
`deprived of life, liberty, or property. without due process
`
`
`
`4
`
`of law; nor shall private property be taken for public
`use, without just compensation.
`
`Amendment VII
`In suits at common law, where the value in controversy
`shall exceed twenty dollars, the, right of trial by jury
`shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury shall be
`otherwise re-examined in any court of the United
`States, than according to the rules of the common law.
`
`Amendment XIV
`Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the
`United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof,
`are citizens of the United States and of the State
`wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce
`any law, which shall abridge the privileges or immuni-
`ties of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State
`deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without
`due process of law; nor deny to any person within its
`jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
`Minnesota Constitution, Article I, Bill of Rights, Sec. 4
`Trial by Jury says that, "The right of trial by jury shall
`remain inviolate, and shall extend to all cases at law
`without regard to the amount in controversy." Also in
`Sec. 2 Rights and Privileges, "No member of this state
`shall be disenfranchised or deprived of any of the rights
`or privileges secured to any citizen thereof, unless by
`the law of the land or the judgment of his peers. . .
`
`
`
`5
`
`Minnesota Constitution, Article I, Sec. 8 Redress of In-
`juries or Wrongs says that, "Every person is entitled to
`a certain remedy in the laws for all injuries or wrongs
`which he may receive to his person, property, or char-
`acter, and to obtain justice freely and without pur-
`chase, completely and without denial, promptly and
`without delay, conformable to the laws."
`Minnesota Constitution, Article I, Sec. 7, says that, "No
`person shall. . . be deprived of life, liberty, or property
`without due process of law."
`Minnesota Statute 645.17 Presumptions In Ascertain-
`ing Legislative Intent says that, "(3) the legislature
`does not intend to violate the Constitution of the
`United States or of this state."
`
`STATEMENT OF THE CASE
`Notice of Appeal
`Please take notice that the above-named Respond-
`ents, Gene Rechtzigel, individually and as trustee of
`Evelyn I. Rechtzigel Trust, as trustee of the Frank H.
`Rechtzigel trust, and as P.R. of the Estate of Frank H.
`Rechtzigel, serves, all who are shown in the peti-
`tioner's affidavit of mailing (as required of petitioner
`in Minn. Stat. 117.115), on all parties, and files a No-
`tice of Appeal, on July 5, 2017, to the district court
`of Dakota County, Minnesota, within 40 days, pursu-
`ant to Minnesota Statutes 117.145 and 117.086 from
`the mailed notice of the report of the commissioners
`that was filed on May 26, 2017 with the court.
`
`
`
`This Notice of Appeal specifies the particular
`award of $47,000.00 as a failure to award damages
`to the owner of the property herein described as Gene
`Rechtzigel, individually and as trustee of Evelyn I.
`Rechtzigel Trust, as trustee of the Frank H. Rechtzigel
`trust, and as P.R. of the Estate of Frank H. Rechtzigel.
`
`This Notice of Appeal specifies that the nature is
`for damages that occurred, such as "to reimburse the
`owner for the land taken," and including "the
`amount of the award of damages" "to reimburse
`the owner for damages to the remainder tract
`not taken whether or not described in the peti-
`tion" under Minnesota Statutes 117.145, under Min-
`nesota Statutes 117.086, and under Minnesota
`Statutes 117.175 and as granted under the United
`States and Minnesota Constitution and bill of rights.
`1. This Notice of Appeal specify the "nature" and
`"amount of the claim" to be:
`A. To reimburse the owner for the land taken:
`a. AREA: 46,888 Square Feet (1.08 Acres,
`Not a Retracement Survey of Historical
`Farm Property Line, as is required by
`Minn. Statutes 559.25, [legal irons of
`Retracement Survey of Historical Farm
`Property Line were pulled up illegally by
`Fischer according to the Minnesota Ap-
`peals Court Decision of A13-1661, Peter
`Wells Fischer vs. Gene A. Rechtzigel, Filed
`August 25, 2014, Reversed, Kirk, Judge,
`stated, "Because the HRO had expired
`and the district court did not find
`
`
`
`Rechtzigel in contempt for violating the
`HRO, it did not have authority in the
`HRO proceeding to allow Fischer to re-
`move the iron monument from his
`property] but an illegal [in violation of
`Minn. Statutes 559.251 theoretical sur-
`vey laid down on land that Rechtzigel
`owns both sides of, without Fischer or the
`City being in possession of for the Statu-
`tory 15 years), multiplied by $400,000.00
`Per Acres, equals an reimbursement of
`$432,000.00 that the City of Apple Valley
`owes to the Rechtzigels, according to area
`by Bolton & Menk, Inc. hired by City of
`Apple Valley to do the fraudulent Survey.
`b. See B., a., for correct legal Sq. Feet and
`Acres according to "common law" and
`Minnesota Statutes 559.25, for real Re-
`tracement Survey.
`B. To reimburse the owner for damages to the
`remainder tract not taken whether or not de-
`scribed in the petition. and giving herein ad-
`ditional notice required in Minn. Statutes
`117.086:
`a. $172,209.80 for: AREA: 53,582 Sq. Feet =
`1.23007 Acres, the legal amount of Acres
`that is in compliance with Minn. Stat-
`utes 559.25, Amati vs. Haraden, 280
`Minn. 399, 159 N.W.2d 907 (1968) ("evi-
`dence of acts and conduct of parties and
`their predecessors in interest over a period
`of at least 38 years was sufficient to war-
`rant establishment of boundary line by
`
`
`
`practical location by trial court"), Mary
`Elizabeth Jackman vs. Samuel Wil-
`liam Bownas, et al., No. E2004-01893-
`COA-R3-CV, Court of Appeals of Tennes-
`see, at Knoxville, Filed June 21, 2005
`("the court found the boundary to be the
`fence line that had been in existence for 60
`years. We affirm."), Adam vs. Hoover,
`Docket No. 114847, Michigan Court ofAp-
`peals, November 2, 1992, 10:05 A.M.,
`("The Daley Court held that long es-
`tablished occupational lines are not
`to be disturbed by recent surveys and
`that settled boundaries shall be al-
`lowed repose and shall not be dis-
`turbed. . . "), and the Minnesota Appeals
`Court Decision of A13-1661, Peter Wells
`Fischer, vs. Gene A. Rechtzigel, Filed Au-
`gust 25, 2014, Reversed, Kirk, Judge,
`stated, "Because the HRO had expired
`and the district court did not find
`Rechtzigel in contempt for violating the
`HRO, it did not have authority in the
`HRO proceeding to allow Fischer to re-
`move the iron monument from his
`property"], multiplied by $400,000.00
`Per Acres, equals an reimbursement of
`$172,209.80 for land strip of Rechtzigels.
`(This section of this notice [I., B., a.]
`serves both to fulfill the notice contents of
`both Minn. Statutes 117.145, and 117.086)
`b. $1,530,305.79 (100% damage) to re-
`mainder 3.8257 Acres multiplied by
`$400,000.00, equals $1,530,305.79, for
`land under road that connects the farm
`
`
`
`land strip (that city is condemning) to
`the farm land builds site that all together
`totals 10.11 acres in Apple Valley Rechtzi-
`gel Farm site, that qualifies the farm for
`"green acres" and for being a "farm" un-
`der Apple Valley City Code. The Condem-
`nation of the Rechtzigel land Strip kills
`the need of the Rechtzigel road acres to
`connect to the condemned strip of land
`"taken" kills the land building site be-
`cause the 10.11 acres that qualifies it as
`a farm and for purposes of future green
`acres is a part of City's "taking," due to
`this case of Eminent Domain Condemna-
`tion Quick Take by the City of Apple Val-
`ley.
`$518,112.37 (25% damage to remainder
`5.181 acres remaining of and around
`farm buildings property site) that City of
`Apple Valley created of injury, hardships,
`loss, and damages to Farm Property Clas-
`sification, loss of land use, and damage to
`Farm Fence and much higher property
`taxes from the "taking" of past years, pre-
`sent years and future years, due to this
`case of Eminent Domain Condemnation
`Quick Take by the City of Apple Valley.
`$135,420.87 for unjust enrichment of go-
`ing to Court to stop fraudulent adverse
`possession by Fischer Market LLP in Feb-
`ruary 8,9, 2012 Hearing, Judgment Filed
`April 6, 2012, and June 25, 2012 Hearing
`for the Amended Judgment Filed on Au-
`gust 22, 2012, and subsequent hearings
`
`
`
`10
`
`and hours for an expense of 135,420.87 by
`Mohrman and Kaardal, P.A. on the Fisher
`Market LLP land case, due to the City's
`direct attendance at and due to this case
`of Eminent Domain Condemnation Quick
`Take by the City of Apple Valley that the
`City was planning on doing.
`$20,847.76 for the City of Apple Valley
`• sponsored Fischer Market Harassment
`Proceedings that an Apple Valley Police
`Officer and Mr. Fischer told city residents
`(that Mr. Rechtzigel witnessed from 20
`feet away) to file against Mr. Rechtzigel
`because Mr. Rechtzigel drove on his own
`strip of property to defend the Rechtzigel
`East Property Line from illegal take of
`property on or about April 7, 2012, which
`hearing the City of Apple Valley attended
`and were involved in due to this case of
`Eminent Domain Condemnation Quick
`Take by the City of Apple Valley that the
`City was planning on doing.
`$50,000 estimated for the hardship of the
`destruction of Mr. Rechtzigel's farm busi-
`ness as damage to his ability to run his
`farm business effectively as the land be-
`ing reclassified as "residential" and hav-
`ing to fight numerous repeated legal
`battles with the City of Apple Valley's ma-
`licious. prosecution, due to them claiming
`he was no longer a farm because of the
`land being less than 10 acres, with the
`unknown expense of the take causing 3
`present alleged unjustified misdemeanor
`
`
`
`11
`
`charges currently pending and unre-
`solved because of the malicious prosecu-
`tion from the City of Apple Valley towards
`Mr. Rechtzigel, due to this case of Emi-
`nent Domain Condemnation Quick Take
`by the City of Apple Valley.
`$8000 for the hiring of attorney Ronald B.
`Sieloff to defend Mr. Rechtzigel in this
`proceeding due to the malicious prosecu-
`tion from the City of Apple Valley towards
`Mr. Rechtzigel, due to this case of Emi-
`nent Domain Condemnation Quick Take
`by the City of Apple Valley.
`$100,000 for the hiring of attorney Mark
`Olson to defend Mr. Rechtzigel in these
`and other various proceedings related to
`this condemnation due to the malicious
`prosecution from the City of Apple Valley
`towards Mr. Rechtzigel, due to this case of
`Eminent Domain Condemnation Quick
`Take by the City of Apple Valley.
`$7500 for the hiring of attorney Dirk
`Schwieger to defend Mr. Rechtzigel from
`an accusation of an alleged misdemeanor
`resulting from the malicious prosecution
`from the City of Apple Valley towards Mr.
`Rechtzigel, due to this case of Eminent
`Domain Condemnation Quick Take by
`the City of Apple Valley.
`$5000 for the hiring of law firm Chandler
`and Brown to defend Mr. Rechtzigel from
`an accusation of 3 alleged misdemeanors
`resulting from the malicious prosecution
`
`
`
`12
`
`from the City of Apple Valley towards Mr.
`Rechtzigel, due to this case of Eminent
`Domain Condemnation Quick Take by
`the City of Apple Valley.
`k. $50,000 for the emotional, mental, and
`physical damage of being jailed for walk-
`ing on his own land, the proof of owner-
`ship being found in Judge King's
`November 12, 2013 Filed Judgment stat-
`ing, "Despite all of the issues surrounding
`ownership of the gap, the Court is con-
`vinced that Rechtzigel owns the gap. The
`Court reaches this conclusion because
`Rechtzigel's predecessors farmed the gap
`for over 15 consecutive years up until the
`time of the sale to Pulte". The Apple Valley
`City Attorney and police officers under
`their control are directly connected to this
`damage due to this case of Eminent Do-
`main Condemnation Quick Take by the
`City of Apple Valley.
`1. $25,000 for the emotional, mental, and
`physical damage of being jailed a second
`time in relation to this case, because of
`the malicious prosecution by the City of
`Apple Valley against Mr. Rechtzigel, due
`to this case of Eminent Domain Condem-
`nation Quick Take by the City of Apple
`Valley.
`2. This Notice of Appeal specify "the land to which
`it relates" is:
`The West one-half of the Southwest Quarter (W ½
`of SW 'A) and the West 30 acres of the East
`
`
`
`13
`
`one-half of the Southwest Quarter (E ½ of SW 1/4),
`all in Section 35, Township 115, Range 20, Con-
`taining 110 acres, more or less, according to the
`Government Survey thereof. Except the plat of
`REGATTA, Dakota County, Minnesota; And ex-
`cept the plat of REGATTA 2ND ADDITION, Da-
`kota County, Minnesota. Subject to all easements
`recorded and unrecorded. This land described
`above contains 10.11 acres. Said above described
`land is more particularly described as follows:
`Beginning at the Southwest Corner of said Section
`35; thence North 00 degrees 07 minutes 54 sec-
`onds East, assumed bearing, a distance of 90.00
`feet along the west line of said Section 35; thence
`South 89 degrees 57 minutes 42 seconds East, a
`distance of 50.00 feet to a point on the north line
`of the Dakota County Right of Way Map No. 160;
`thence North 00 degrees 07 minutes 50 seconds
`East along the east line of Flagstaff Avenue as
`shown on said plat of REGATTA 2ND ADDITION;
`thence continuing along said east line of Flagstaff
`Avenue a distance of 172.73 feet, along a tangen-
`tial curve concave to the west, radius of 1050.00
`feet; thence continuing along said east line of Flag-
`staff Avenue a distance of 3.15 feet, along a tan-
`gential curve concave to the east, radius 950.00
`feet; thence South 89 degrees 57 minutes 42 sec-
`onds East, a distance of 820.69 feet, along the
`south lines of said plats of REGATTA 2ND ADDI-
`TION and REGATTA; thence South 00 degrees 07
`minutes 51 seconds West, a distance of 275.00 feet
`along the west line of said plat of REGATTA;
`thence South 89 degrees 57 minutes 42 seconds
`East, a distance of 968.36 feet along the south line
`of said plat of REGATTA, to the southeast corner
`
`
`
`14
`
`of REGATTA; thence North 00 degrees 02 minutes
`18 seconds East, a distance of 2564.98 feet along
`the east line of said plat of REGATTA, to the
`northeast corner of REGATTA; thence North 89
`degrees 57 minutes 33 seconds East along the
`north line of said Southwest Quarter of section 35,
`a distance of 15.95 feet; thence South 00 degrees
`02 minutes 18 seconds West, a distance of 650.82
`feet; thence South 00 degrees 16 minutes 56 sec-
`onds East, a distance of 2004.22 feet to the south
`line of said Southwest Quarter of Section 35;
`thence North 89 degrees 57 minutes 42 seconds
`West, along said south line of said Southwest
`Quarter of Section 35, a distance of 1851.67 feet,
`to the point of beginning.
`3. This Notice ofAppeal specifies the "grounds of the
`appeal" to be:
`A. That the City of Apple Valley, the Condemning
`Authority, did not follow the Minnesota Stat-
`utes in fulfilling the legislature's intent that
`the condemning authority act in "good faith"
`to secure all safeguards of the procedures of
`the condemnation proceedings which the City
`of Apple Valley has failed at doing as some ex-
`amples of the City's failure is:
`(a) The Report is false, because none of the
`undersigned commissioners "met at the
`time and place appointed by the Court
`thereof, to-wit, in the office of District
`Court, in the City of Hastings, State of
`Minnesota" and all the Commissioners
`failed to each to take the oath prescribed
`bylaw.
`
`
`
`15
`
`The Report is inadequate, incomplete
`without any foundation as who the owner
`is of the property, and to the size of the
`property?
`The Report omits that Rechtzigel is sole
`ownership of the property in question
`as stated by the District Court (Point 39,
`Page 14, Nov. 12, 2013 Judgment by
`Judge Robert R. King Jr., Court File No.
`1911A-CV-09-5476) "Despite all of the is-
`sues surrounding ownership of the gap,
`the Court is convinced that Rechtzi-
`gel owns the gap. The Court reaches this
`conclusion because Rechtzigel's predeces-
`sors farmed the gap for over 15 consecu-
`tive years up until the time of the sale to
`Pulte. The Court is convinced of that due
`to the testimony of Dorene Nepsund, who
`testified consistent with that claim and
`was credible . . . Thus, after the sale,
`Rechtzigel still owned the gap." that
`was submitted at the commissioner's
`hearing.
`The Report is full of misrepresentations
`and in denial of the fact that the Judge
`Robert R. King Jr. Judgment of Nov 12,
`2013 is controlling, quote, "To the extent
`there are any inconsistencies between
`these orders, the following Findings, Con-
`clusions, and Order controls" ("Filed Da-
`kota County, Carolyn M. Remm, Court
`Administrator NOV. 12, 2013 ... FIND-
`INGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF
`LAW AND ORDER FOR JUDGMENT
`
`
`
`INS
`
`AND JUDGMENT ... Court File No.
`19HA-CV-09-5476"), which clearly states
`that Rechtzigel owns the entire property
`in this condemnation action and". . . Mr.
`Rechtzigel can still proceed with his sepa-
`rate registration action filed on February
`22,2012."
`The Report misrepresents and omits the
`fact of the "Land Boundary Survey,
`Rechtzigel Farm Land" by State Engi-
`neering & Surveying Inc., Professional
`Land Surveyor James Bridell, (Minne-
`sota License No. 23266) and that the size
`of damaged property from the taking is
`10.11 acres, that was submitted at the
`commissioner's hearing.
`The Report misrepresents and omits what
`was submitted at the Commissioner's
`Hearing by the Rechtzigel's, it was sub-
`mitted that the area of the strip of land
`extending from the South line of SW '/
`Section 35 to the North line of SW 1/4 Sec-
`tion 35 (full strip of land): 53,582 Sq. Feet,
`1.23007 acres, as area was surveyed and
`a written report, that was submitted to
`the commissioner's Hearing, gave proof,
`of area, of strip of land, dated July 5, 2013
`(State Engineering & Surveying Inc., Jim
`Bridell, RLS, Minnesota License No.
`23266 Registered Land Surveyor. (Land
`Boundary Survey, Rechtzigel Farm Land,
`also submitted).
`
`
`
`17
`
`The Report misrepresents and omits the
`fact that adjacent properties are valued at
`$400,000 according to the County Ap-
`praiser, from the many Appraisals sub-
`mitted at the Commissioner's Hearings
`on May 16, 2017 at the Apple Valley City
`Hall.
`The Report omits who the parties were at
`the Commissioner's Hearing.
`Rechtzigel & Zachary Stadem (P. of A.),
`made objections to your proposed report
`to the Court and to your Proposed Award
`of Commissioners Form in a letter dated
`May 24, 2017, stating that the Report of
`the Commissioners is inaccurate, incom-
`plete, and biased, not impartial.
`Mr. Rechtzigel fully objects and rejects
`the Commissioner's Report as partial, un-
`fair, and the procedures and process un-
`statutory and Unconstitutional.
`B. The grounds are Statutory, Constitutional,
`Factual and Common Law in seeking good
`faith in the Court to set aside the award and
`the commissioners because the commission-
`ers were not guided by the rules of evidence
`and misapprehended the principles on which
`they were bound to make the assessment
`(City of Minneapolis v. Within, 30 Minn.
`140,14 N.W. 581 (1883); City of St. Paul v.
`Nichl, 42 Minn. 262,44 N.W. 59 (1890)) from
`the start of not taking the oath as stated as a
`shall in the court's order of when, where, and
`who.
`
`
`
`INII
`'Si
`
`The grounds are factual and of law to justify
`the setting aside of the award of the commis-
`sioners as being grossly inadequate and dis-
`proportionate to the value of the land taken
`and to the damages to remainder tract not
`taken whether or not described in the petition
`(Minn. Stat. 117.175; 117.086; and Minn.
`1929, In re Improvement of Third Street,
`St. Paul, 185 Minn. 170 (Minn. 1932)).
`The grounds that the commissioners were not
`guided by the rules of evidence and misappre-
`hended the principles on which they were
`bound to make the assessment is incorporated
`in this Notice to Appeal and lays a foundation
`for the court to find the Commissioners inad-
`equate, unfair, and the proceedings should
`be set aside and a new appraisement made
`before new commissioners (State ex rel.
`Doerrier v. District Court, 44 N.W. 59, 42
`Minn. 262 (1890)).
`The grounds incorporate this entire Notice of
`Appeal and the evidence given and stated by
`Rechtzigel at the Commissioner's Hearing on
`May 16, 2017 at Apple Valley City Hall. This
`condemnation has done the Rechtzigels irrep-
`arable harm to both the land the City is tak-
`ing under Minn. Statutes 117.115 by failing to
`pay Rechtzigel the full amount of damages
`that the Rechtzigels are entitled to. Rechtzigel
`is entitled under Minn. Statute 117.115 to full
`and just compensation for the land that was
`taken, and the damages incurred as a result
`of this taking. Under Minn. Statute 117.086
`and Minn. Stat 117.175 sub 1 & 2 Rechtzigel
`
`
`
`19
`
`is also entitled to the full and just compensa-
`tion from the damages to his remaining land;
`the value lost in reduction in size and appeal;
`the value and rights lost in reduction to less
`than 10 acres, thus not able to qualify for
`Green Acres farm rights and protections.
`Rechtzigel has the right under Minn. Statute
`117.165 subd. 1 that "when an appeal is
`taken from the commissioner's award to
`the district court, the parties are entitled
`to a jury trial." Rechtzigel also has the right
`under Minn. Statute 117.145 that "A party
`who is not satisfied with the commissioner's
`award may appeal the award to the district
`court." Therefore he has the full right by law
`to appeal and ask that the award be set aside
`and given new commissioners, acting fair and
`impartial and willing to give a just and impar-
`tial compensation assessment.
`F. Since 2011, the City of Apple Valley has been
`indirectly and directly planning, preparing,
`and working on condemning the Rechtzigel
`strip of land through malicious prosecution,
`for the City of Apple Valley was involved in at-
`tending the Fisher Market Case Court File
`No. 19HA-CV-09-5476 trials by Court on Feb-
`ruary 8,9, 2012, "MR. DONELY: Your Honor,
`Thomas Donely, D-o-n-e-1-y, on behalf of the
`City of Apple Valley."; June 25, 2012 Hearing,
`"MR DONELY: Thomas Donely, Assistant At-
`torney for the City of Apple Valley."; July 2,
`2013 Hearing, "MR. WISDORF: Ryan Wisdorj'
`W-i-s-d-o-r-f city of Apple Valley."; July 9th
`2013, Hearing, "Mr. Wisdorf, W-e-s-d-o-r-j for
`the city of Apple Valley."; August 2, 2013
`
`
`
`20
`
`Hearing, "MR. WISDORF: Brian Wisdort City
`of Apple Valley."
`The City
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
Still Working On It
This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.
Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.
A few More Minutes ... Still Working
It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.
Thank you for your continued patience.
This document could not be displayed.
We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
Set your membership
status to view this document.
With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll
get a whole lot more, including:
- Up-to-date information for this case.
- Email alerts whenever there is an update.
- Full text search for other cases.
- Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.
One Moment Please
The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.
Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.
Your document is on its way!
If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.
Sealed Document
We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.
If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.
Access Government Site
