STATE OF MINNESOTA
IN COURT OF APPEALS
The Minneapolis Community Development Agency, petitioner,
Employment Advisors International, Inc., et al.,
Mid-America Bank, et al.,
Filed November 23, 1999
Hennepin County District Court
File No. CD2515
Marc J. Manderscheid, Lisa M. Agrimonti, Briggs and Morgan, P.A., 2200 First National Bank Building, 332 Minnesota Street, St. Paul, MN 55101-1396 (for respondent Minneapolis Community Development Agency)
William S. Rosen, Daniel N. Rosen, Rosen & Rosen, PLLP, 1200 Minnesota World Trade Center, 30 East Seventh Street, St. Paul, MN 55101 (for appellants)
Considered and decided by Schumacher, Presiding Judge, Kalitowski, Judge, and Foley, Judge.[*]
Appellants contend the district court erred in granting the condemning authority's petition for condemnation pursuant to Minn. Stat. § 117.042 (1998). We dismiss.
Appellants contend respondent Minneapolis Community Development Agency (MCDA) unlawfully took appellants' property because a clause in the contract reconveying the property from MCDA to Hines, a private developer, left the decision to proceed with the proposed project to the sole discretion of Hines. Therefore, appellants argue there was no assurance that the stated public purpose justifying the taking would be satisfied.
Because intervening events have rendered this appeal moot, we do not reach the merits of appellants' argument. An appeal will be dismissed as moot "if during the appeal process an intervening event occurs which renders it impossible to grant any relief or which makes a decision unnecessary." Obermoller v. Federal Land Bank of St. Paul, 409 N.W.2d 229, 231 (Minn. App. 1987) (quotation omitted), review denied (Minn. Sept. 18, 1987). In Moore v. McDonald, 165 Minn. 484, 485, 205 N.W. 894, 895 (1925), plaintiffs brought suit to enjoin a railroad company from constructing a bridge and to require revocation of the building permit for the bridge. The district court denied plaintiffs' application for a temporary injunction enjoining construction of the bridge. Id. By the time the appeal was heard, the railroad bridge had been constructed. Id. The supreme court dismissed the appeal, holding it was moot because "[a] reversal of the order, and the issuance at this time of the temporary injunction * * * would accomplish nothing." Id.
Here, it is undisputed that all buildings and improvements on land acquired by MCDA, including appellants', have been demolished and Hines has begun construction of a new 750,000 square foot Class A office building. Thus, the public purpose for the taking is being fulfilled. Because it is undisputed that the taking of appellants' property is serving a necessary public purpose, we conclude that a decision by this court on the merits would accomplish nothing. We, therefore, dismiss this appeal as moot.
[*] Retired judge of the Minnesota Court of Appeals, serving by appointment pursuant to Minn. Const. art. VI, § 10.