Cited by

25 v. Glass, –5 (Minn. 2008) (citation omitted) (internal quotation marks omitted).

802, 805 (Minn. 1940) (declining to consider claims where they were “based on a hypothetical state of facts”); rev’d on other grounds, (“[W]e must decide the case on the present facts .

21 The Ty sdals cite three cases, all of which are distinguishable: and McLafferty v. St.

In its responsive brief, the town argues that Stoick Creek “does not have any right of access to Wells Lake Court, a plat-dedicated road, because the road inures to the benefit of the owners of the adjacent, platted property.” In support of this argument, and Gilbert v. Emerson, 61 N.W.

(“[A]ny abutting landowner owns to the middle of the platted street .

471, 472 (Minn. 1892) (stating “where lots are conveyed in accordance with a town plat, the deed is presumed to include a grant of the soil to the center of the street, subject to the public easement.”); (“As to the ownership of the underlying fee interest, we have recognized that any abutting landowner owns to the middle of the platted street or alley and that the soil and its appurtenances, within the limits 9 of such street or alley, belong to the owner in fee, subject only to the right of th

A plat dedicatio n operates as a “convey ance in trust to the municipality of a terminable easement only , in any area designated in the plat for public use, and the fee title thereto remains in th e dedicator, subject to the easement.” (emphasis added) ().

See id.; -5 (Minn. 2008) (“The general rule is that, in matters of municipal concern, home rule cities have all the legislative power possessed by the legislatur e of the state, save as such power is expressly or impliedly withheld.”).

’” (quoting Etzler, d at 610).

A “public way dedicated or donated on a plat shall c onvey an easement only.” Id.; see also Bolen v. Glass , (concluding th at when land is transferred via plat dedication, the property intere st conveyed is a terminable easement).

Bolen v. Glass , , 4-5 (Minn. 2008) (quotation omitted).

Bolen v. Glass , , 4-5 (Minn. 2008) (quotation omitted).

n Bolen v. Glass, this court affirmed the district court's grant of the original plaintiffs’ posttrial rule 15.02 motion to amend the complaint to add a plaintiff, reasoning in part that "[defendant]’s answer had alleged as an affirmative defense the [original plaintiffs’] failure to add [the new plaintiff] as an indispensable party.” rev'd on other grounds

“[I]n matters of municipal concern, home rule cities have all the legislative power possessed by the legislature of the state, save as such power is expressly or impliedly withheld.” -5 (Minn.2008) (quotation omitted).

are presumed to be valid, and are not to be set aside by *345 the courts unless their invalidity is clear.’ ” (quoting State v. Taubert, 126 Minn. 871 , 372, 148 N.W.