Victor Legatt, et al., Appellants,

This opinion will be unpublished and
may not be cited except as provided by
Minn. Stat. § 480A.08, subd. 3 (2016).

STATE OF MINNESOTA
IN COURT OF APPEALS
A16-1255

Victor Legatt, et al.,
Appellants,

vs.

Dennis Legatt, et al.,
Respondents.

Filed April 10, 2017
Reversed
Bjorkman, Judge

Stearns County District Court
File No. 73-CV-12-3629

James L. Noske, Noske Law Firm, St. Cloud, Minnesota (for appellants)

Benjamin B. Bohnsack, Anna K. B. Finstrom, Rinke Noonan, St. Cloud, Minnesota (for
respondents)

Considered and decided by Peterson, Presiding Judge; Bjorkman, Judge; and
Hooten, Judge.
U N P U B L I S H E D O P I N I O N
BJORKMAN, Judge
Appellants challenge an enforcement judgment requiring them to remove an
underground irrigation system from respondents’ land following a previous decision of this

2
court. Because the di strict court’s initial determination that appellants’ easement is
perpetual was not challenged during the prior appeal, we reverse.
FACTS
Appellants Victor and Mary Legatt (Victor) and respondents Dennis and Lois Legatt
(Dennis) own adjoining farmland in Stearns County. Over the years , the parties have
operated under a number of mutually beneficial land-use agreements. One such agreement,
signed in March 2005, permitted Dennis to operate a pivot irrigation system over a portion
of Victor’s land. The lease agreement also granted Victor an easement to bury and maintain
irrigation pipes on Dennis’s land. The lease agreement explicitly identifies its term as “the
crop years of 2004 through the crop year of 2013.”
In A pril 2012, Victor sued Dennis, alleging a number of claims related to their
various land-use agreements and business relationship. Dennis interposed an answer and
counterclaim in which he claimed to have a perpetual easement to operate the pivot
irrigation system over Victor’s land. During trial, Dennis acknowledged that Victor had
an easement to bury the irrigation pipes on Dennis’s land. And he testified that he
understood Victor’s easement was for an indefinite period of time and that he intended to
allow Victor to keep the pipes there after the lease agreement ended. The dist rict court
determined that the parties had perpetual easements over the other’s land: Dennis to operate
the pivot irrigation system over Victor’s land and Victor to bury the irri gation pipes on
Dennis’s land. The district court also found that the easements were reciprocal.
Victor appealed, arguing, among other things, that Dennis’s easement ended in
2013, when the lease agreement terminated. Dennis did not challenge the distr ict court’s

3
finding that Victor’s easement is perpetual. This court reversed the district court’s
determination that Dennis had a perpetual easement. We concluded that Dennis’s easement
was based on the lease agreement . Because the easement was created for a set ten-year
term, it is not a perpetual easement. Legatt v. Legatt, No. A15-0403, 2015 WL 7693533,
at *8-9 (Minn. App. Nov. 30, 2015), review denied (Minn. Feb. 24, 2016).
On March 31, 2016, Dennis moved the district court for an order to show cause as
to why Victor should not be required to remove the pipes buried on Dennis’s land. He
argued that this court’s determination that his easement expire d had the effect of also
terminating Victor’s easement. Victor opposed the motion . The district court construed
the submissions as cross-motions for summary judgment, granted Dennis’s motion, and
ordered Victor to remove the buried pipes. The district court explained that this court’s
ruling that Dennis does not have a perpetual easement applies equally to Victor’s easement,
and concluded “[i]f Dennis’s interest in Victor’s land ended with the term of the lease, so
did Victor’s interest in Dennis’s land.” Victor appeals.
D E C I S I O N
The district court’s application of this court’s prior decision presents a question of
law, which we review de novo. In re Estate of Eckley, 780 N.W.2d 407, 410 (Minn. App.
2010). Victor argues that the district court erred by determining that this court’s decision
in Legatt terminated his easement to bury irrigation pipes on Dennis’s land. We agree for
two reasons.
First, Dennis did not challenge the perpetual nature of Victor’s easement in Legatt.
When an appellate decision “finally conclude[s]” a matter, the district court is without

4
jurisdiction to consider post-appeal motions for additional relief. City of Waite Park v.
Minn. Office of Admin. Hearings, 758 N.W.2d 347, 351 (Minn. App. 2008), review denied
(Minn. Feb. 25, 2009). If finality cannot be accomplished on appeal, the appellate court
generally indicates so by remanding the matter to the district court for further proceedings.
Mattson v. Underwriters at Lloyds of London , 414 N.W.2d 717, 720 (Minn. 1987). But
when an appellate court proceeds on the representations of the parties and is “unaware that
anything remain[s] to be litigated” and the parties do not request a remand, the appellate
decision finally concludes the matter. City of Waite Park , 758 N.W.2d at 354 (quotation
omitted).
We are not persuaded by Dennis’s contention that he is entitled to challenge the
duration of Victor’s easement because Victor did not contest the district court’s finding
that the parties’ easements were reciprocal in Legatt. To the contrary, Victor argued to this
court that Dennis’s eas ement terminated with the lease agreement but that his own
easement was perpetual. This court’s decision in Legatt did not disturb the unchallenged
finding that Victor ’s easement is perpetual . And b ecause this court was unaware that
anything remained to be litigated and did not remand the case , the decision finally
concluded the matter of Victor’s easement. Id. Accordingly, t he district court lacked
jurisdiction to consider Dennis’s post-appeal challenge to Victor’s easement. Id. at 351.
Second, the evidence does not support Dennis’s contention that V ictor’s easement
terminated with the lease agreement. Dennis acknowledged that Victor had an easement
to bury the pipes on his land and never disputed the easement’s duration. At trial, Dennis
testified that he intended to allow Victor to keep the pipes buried on his land even after the

5
lease agreement expired. When asked if he understood the pipes would remain there
indefinitely, he answered “I had given consideration of it, yes.” And his proposed findings
of fact, which the district court adopted, explicitly stated that “Victor has no intention of
removing the pipes.”
Because the record indicates the perpetual nature of Victor’s easement was never
disputed, the district court erred in determining that this court’s reasoning with respect to
Dennis’s easement applies equally to Victor’s easement. In rejecting the district court’s
conclusion that Dennis had acquired an easement by estoppel, this court focused on
whether Victor had represented to Denn is that he intended the pivot agreement to last
longer than the lease agreement’s ten-year term. Legatt, 2015 WL 7693533 at *9. Because
the record showed Victor had never made such a representation, we concluded that
Dennis’s easement terminated with the lease agreement. Id. Dennis did not challenge the
perpetual nature of Victor’s easement, and his testimony and proposed findings indicate he
had contemplated that Victor’s easement would continue after the lease term ended. On
this record, we conclude the district court erred in reconsidering the duration of Victor’s
easement and in ordering Victor to remove the irrigation pipes from Dennis’s land.
Reversed.