(Pro Se Appellant)

Peggy Birk, St. Paul City Attorney, Peter Warner, Assistant City Attorney, 400 City Hall, 15 West Kellogg Boulevard, St. Paul, MN 55102 (for Respondent)

Considered and decided by Peterson, Presiding Judge, Klaphake, Judge, and Davies, Judge.

Pro se appellant Leonard Anderson claims the trial court abused its discretion in ordering him to correct nuisance conditions on his property by a certain date and erred in joining this case with another action he initiated in district court. Because we find no abuse of discretion in the trial court's order and no other error in its consideration of the issues raised by appellant, we affirm.

In 1995, after respondent City of Saint Paul (city) attempted to condemn appellant's property, appellant sought and was issued a temporary restraining order (TRO) to enjoin the city from interfering with his use of the property. In August 1996, the city moved to rescind the TRO because appellant failed to correct nuisance conditions on the property. After holding several hearings on the matter, the trial court ruled that the TRO would be vacated if appellant did not clean up his property by May 1, 1997.

Appellant challenges the trial court's order, which we review under the abuse of discretion standard. See M.G.M. Liquor Warehouse, Int'l v. Forsland, 371 N.W.2d 75, 77 (Minn. App. 1985). After a thorough examination of the record, we conclude that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in ordering appellant to correct the nuisance conditions on the property. The city provided strong testamentary and documentary evidence that appellant's property continues to constitute a public nuisance. This evidence, which included photographs and a videotape of the property, showed that appellant's residence needed numerous repairs and that his yard was full of many items, such as an MTC bus, a boat and boat parts, large and small construction equipment, and debris. While appellant testified to his ill health and the hampering effects of animals and adverse weather conditions, the court apparently concluded that these obstacles were insufficient to allow appellant to prolong the already two-year delay in abating the conditions. We agree.

Appellant further claims that the court erred in "commingling" his two district court actions. However, each action seeks declaratory and injunctive relief, and each raises identical or nearly identical claims arising from the same facts. In addition, appellant references both trial court file numbers in his notice of appeal to this court. Finally, because this issue was not raised before the trial court, we decline to hear it on appeal. See Thiele v. Stich, 425 N.W.2d 580, 582 (Minn. 1988).

Affirmed.