What is required notice for appeal of a protected waters determination? Bode v. Minnesota Dep't of Natural Resources, 633 N.W.2d 25 (Minn. App. 2001). In 1980 William Bode appealed the determination of the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (DNR) that a portion of his farm constituted a public wetland. The Nicollet County Hearings Unit held for Bode, and in 1986 the DNR appealed this decision to the district court. The DNR sent Bode a notice of hearing of the appeal, but the notice did not list him as a party and it did not state that if the DNR prevailed, Bode would be liable to remove a drain tile system that he had installed while the appeal was pending. Bode later lost the appeal, and the DNR partially removed the drain tile system to restore the wetland. Bode's successors-in-interest, his daughters, filed suit in 1996 against the DNR for damages cause by the DNR's partial removal of the drain tile system. The district court granted the DNR summary judgment. In October 2000, the Bodes filed a motion to vacate the 1986 judgment on the ground that the notice to Bode of the 1986 appeal was constitutionally inadequate and therefore the court did not have personal jurisdiction. The district court denied the motion and the Bodes appealed. The Court of Appeals noted that Bode was informed before the 1981 drain tile installation that he would be taking a risk if he installed the tile prior to the final wetland determination. Consequently, "Bode knew of the potential consequences of a reversal of the hearings-unit decision" and could not claim he received inadequate notice. The Court also observed that Bode was involved in disputes regarding the wetland between 1980 and 1986, and retained counsel for the 1980 hearing based solely on published notice. Thus, Bode did not lack the "experience and sophistication in legal and administrative matters" that would lead him to ignore a notice of hearing simply because it did not list him as a party. The Court ruled that the 1986 hearing notice was constitutionally sufficient and upheld the district court judgment. The Court further held that even if the notice was insufficient, the Bodes waived the right to assert the defense of lack of personal jurisdiction by participating in the subsequent legal proceedings. A defense of lack of personal jurisdiction is waived when the court's jurisdiction affirmatively is involved. The Court concluded that "by proceeding through multiple appeals in the issue of wetland designation and then delaying 14 years before filing motions to vacate, appellants have waived any right to assert a lack of personal jurisdiction."
|
||
 |
||