2012-05-23 CC Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

development -cost approach may be used, traditional methods of valuations must be inadequate. Buzick, 491 N.W.2d at 926. The district court did not address Buzick. Sheehy contends that our consideration of this issue is inappropriate because the city failed to raise it before the district court. See Thiele, 425 N.W.2d at 582. Even if we concluded that the city adequately raised its objection to Shopek's testimony by its motion in limine, we would still be foreclosed from addressing this argument because the city failed to seek a new trial or amended findings based on its asserted error in the district court's evidentiary ruling. The Minnesota Supreme Court has recently reiterated that "a motion for a new trial or amended findings is a prerequisite to appellate review regarding matters of `trial procedure, evidentiary rulings, and jury instructions' that arise `during the course of trial.'" Conti Retail, LLC v. Cnty. of Hennepin, 801 N.W.2d 395, 399 (Minn. 2011) (quoting Alpha Real Estate Co. v. Delta Dental Plan, 664 N.W.2d 303, 310 (Minn. 2003)) (other quotation omitted). Therefore, "evidentiary rulings made at trial must be assigned as error in a motion for a new trial or amended findings in order to properly preserve an objection for appellate review," and "failure to bring such a motion precludes appellate review." Id. This rule applies to assessment proceedings. See Am. Bank of St. Paul v. City of Minneapolis, 802 N.W.2d 781, 790 (Minn. App. 2011) (in appellate used in an appraisal were based on speculation as to when market demand would support profitable development. Buzick v. City of Blaine, 491 N.W.2d 923, 926-27 (Minn. App. 1992), aff'd, 505 N.W.2d 51 (Minn. 1993). Because the city's arguments on the development -cost approach were not asserted in a motion for a new trial, we do not address the issue of whether Shopek's testimony, admitted as foundation for Herman's appraisal, constituted development -cost evidence. 9 22