Shane Feldhaus v. City of Minnetonka

Syllabus

In this appeal from summary judgment, appellants challenge the dismissal of their claims stemming from the intermittent flooding of their residential property by a nearby pond. The City of Minnetonka (city) owns and maintains the pond as a part of its stormwater-management system. Appellants assert that the flooding amounts to a physical taking that requires just compensation. Alternatively, appellants contend that the city is liable in nuisance or trespass for damage caused by its failure to manage pond water levels by routine maintenance and its approval of development within the watershed that increased impervious areas. Appellants argue that the district court erred by (1) determining that no taking occurred, entering judgment for the city as a matter of law on their eminent-domain and inverse-condemnation claims, and dismissing their statutory claim for attorney fees and costs, and (2) determining that the city is not liable, in the alternative, for appellants' tort claims because the challenged government conduct is shielded by discretionary--function immunity under Minn. Stat. § 466.03, subd. 6 (2022). Based on our review of the summary-judgment record, we conclude that the district court erred in granting summary judgment on the eminent-domain and inverse-condemnation claims. As a result, it is also not proper to dismiss appellants' statutory claim for attorney fees and costs. As for appellants' alternative tort claims, we conclude that the city has satisfied its burden to show that its decisions to forgo routine maintenance of the pond and not to install an outlet in the pond are protected by discretionary-function immunity because this challenged conduct involves economic, political, and planning decisions. On the other hand, appellants also challenge the city's development decisions that, they claim, increased impervious surfaces around the pond and increased flooding. Based on the record before us, we conclude that the city has failed to offer evidence s