|
<br />
<br />, .
<br />
<br />. 2d SERIES
<br />
<br />Domain €=>2(I.2)
<br />
<br />linance requiring mobile ho '
<br />who close their parks to ::
<br />sts to park residents did r ,
<br />cla not .>-
<br />:s. use of Minnesota Constitu-'!'
<br />rdinance was not designed :',
<br />~ fit- s~
<br />~~e governmental enterprise :
<br />tive easement. M.S.A. Co:
<br />Bloomington Minn C nst.:
<br />, , " ., ode art.. 'j
<br />
<br />mal Law 'e::>213.1(2), 251.3
<br />
<br />islation is not based on suspect
<br />:; not infringe on fundamental
<br />only be rationally related to
<br />ernmental purpose in order to
<br />~ equal protection or sub-
<br />~rocess challenges. U.S.C.A.
<br />14.
<br />
<br />)nal Law €=>213.1(2), 251.3
<br />
<br />::u protection and due process
<br />~esota Constitution, legisla-
<br />tionalso long as it serves to
<br />purpose; is not unreasonable
<br />>ricious interference With Pri~
<br />ld means chosen bear rational
<br />blic purpose sought to be
<br />Const. Art. I, ~ 13.
<br />
<br />nal Law €=>228.3, 278.3
<br />Id Tenant €=>392
<br />
<br />nce requiring mobile home
<br />to closed their parks to pay
<br />to park residents satisfied
<br />8t for equal protection and
<br />process purposes, where or-
<br />ed legitimate government
<br />takings analysis. U.S.C.A.
<br />i, 14; Bloomington, Minn.,
<br />69.
<br />
<br />)rporations €=>11l(l)
<br />I)
<br />
<br />odies gene~y are not re-
<br />:e reasons for enacting stat-
<br />
<br />ARCADIA DEVELOP. v. CITY OF BLOOMINGTON
<br />Cite as 552 N.W.2d 281 (M1nn.App. 1996)
<br />,IS- Municipal Corporations €=>120 &' Lindgren, Ltd., Bloomington, for appel-
<br />", Statutes e::=ol84 lants.
<br />. Even when reasons for adopting statute John E. Simonett, Clifford M. Greene,
<br />~ ordinance are articulated by legislative John M. Baker, Green Espel, P.L.L.P., Min-
<br />bodY reviewing court must assume those neapoIis, David R. Ornstein, City Attorney,
<br />~ns are actual purpose of legislation. Greg Brooker, Associate City Attorney,
<br />1 L 2 1(2) Bloomington, for respondent City of Bloom-
<br />It constitutiona aw e::=o 13. , 251.3
<br />1. ington.
<br />Rational basis test mere y reqUIres that
<br />legislation challenged on equal protection or Maury Landsman, Minneapolis, for Amicus
<br />,ubstaDtive due process grounds be sup- Curiae AP AC.
<br />ported by any set of facts either known or
<br />which could reasonably be assumed.
<br />U.s.C.A. Const.Amend. 14.
<br />
<br />15. Damages e::=o50.10
<br />City's adoption of ordinance requiring
<br />mobile home park owners who close their Considered and decided by HUSPENI,
<br />parks to pay relocation costs to park resi- P.J., TOUSSAINT, C.J., and HOLTAN, J.*
<br />dents was not egregious conduct required to
<br />support mobile home park owner's claim for
<br />Intentional infliction of emotional distress,
<br />even if city was protecting its own self inter-
<br />est by requiring owner to shoulder responsi-
<br />bility for displaced residents' relocation costs.
<br />Bloomington, Minn., Code art. 6, ~ 15.69.
<br />
<br />.~: M~:;
<br />, "
<br />"r .;'r
<br />
<br />1'",'"
<br />',' , ,',~'
<br />
<br />~-~~
<br />'~..
<br />:.~
<br />'~
<br />~.'
<br />~'
<br />':f~
<br />:'It
<br />~'
<br />~-
<br />Ii
<br />~~
<br />:~,
<br />~
<br />i
<br />at
<br />I'
<br />
<br />..~!
<br />~
<br />:~
<br />;~:
<br />~1:'
<br />",:l:t
<br />
<br />.1l
<br />
<br />~_..~,
<br />[Ii-
<br />i
<br />
<br />Syllabus by the Court
<br />
<br />1. The city's adoption and enforcement
<br />of an ordinance requiring a mobile home
<br />park owner to pay relocation costs to dis-
<br />placed residents upon the closing of a park
<br />did not constitute a regulatory taking without
<br />just compensation, nor was it a taking for
<br />governmental enterprise.
<br />
<br />2. The ordinance, which is rationally
<br />related to legitimate governmental purposes,
<br />withstands equal protection and substantive
<br />due process challenges.
<br />
<br />,3. The district court did not err in
<br />granting summary judgment on' a claim al-
<br />leging intentional infliction of emotional dis-
<br />tress when the park owner failed to allege
<br />sufficiently egregious facts to sustain that
<br />claim.
<br />
<br />Christopher J. Dietzen, Daniel W. Voss,
<br />Sharna A. Wahlgren, Larkin, Hoffman, Daly
<br />
<br />· Retired judge of the district court. sening as
<br />judge of the Minnesota Court of Appeals by ap-
<br />
<br />Minn. 283
<br />
<br />Hubert H. Humphrey, III, Attorney Gen-
<br />eral, John S. Garry, Assistant Attorney Gen-
<br />eral, St. Paul, for Amicus Curiae, State of
<br />Minnesota.
<br />
<br />OPINION
<br />
<br />TOUSSAINT, Chief Judge.
<br />
<br />Appellants Arcadia Development Corp., a
<br />Minnesota corporation, and Mildred Collins
<br />(Arcadia) brought this action against respon-
<br />dent City of Bloomington, a municipal cor-
<br />poration (City). Arcadia challenges the con-
<br />stitutionality of a City ordinance requiring
<br />mobile home park owners who close their
<br />parks to pay relocation costs to park resi-
<br />dents. Arcadia's complaint alleges that (1)
<br />application of the ordinance constitutes a
<br />regulatory taking without just compensation
<br />and is a taking for governmental enterprise,
<br />(2) the ordinance, as applied, is unconstitu-
<br />tional because it denied Arcadia its right to
<br />substantive due process and equal protec-
<br />tion, and (3) the City's actions in adopting
<br />the ordinance constitute intentional infliction
<br />of emotional distress on Mildred Collins.
<br />
<br />Arcadia appeals from the district court's
<br />grant of summary judgment to the City on
<br />all of its claims. Amicus curiae briefs have
<br />been submitted by the State of Minnesota
<br />and by All Parks Alliance for Change
<br />(AP AC). Both amici support affinnance of
<br />the district court's grant of summary judg-
<br />ment to the City. We affinn.
<br />
<br />pointment pursuant to Minn. Const. art. VI. ~ 10.
<br />
<br />
|