Michael Norman Andersen, Appellant,

This opinion will be unpublished and
may not be cited except as provided by
Minn. Stat. § 480A.08, subd. 3 (2018).

STATE OF MINNESOTA
IN COURT OF APPEALS
A18-1988

Michael Norman Andersen,
Appellant,

vs.

Robert James Buehler, et al.,
Respondents,

Concord Township,
Respondent.

Filed June 10, 2019
Affirmed
Smith, John, Judge*

Dodge County District Court
File No. 20-CV-14-770

Michael S. Dove, Christopher E. Bowler, Gislason & Hunter LLP, New Ulm, Minnesota
(for appellant)

Melanie J. Leth, Timothy A. Woessner, Weber, Leth & Woessner, PLC, Dodge Center,
Minnesota (for respondents Robert Buehler, Charles Giesler, Douglas Rhodes)

Robert A. Alsop, Kennedy & Graven, Chartered, Minneapolis, Minnesota (for respondent
Concord Township)

Considered and decided by Connolly, Presiding Judge; Slieter, Judge; and Smith,
John, Judge.

* Retired judge of the Minnesota Court of Appeals, serving by appointment pursuant to
Minn. Const. art. VI, § 10.

2
U N P U B L I S H E D O P I N I O N
SMITH, JOHN, Judge
We affirm because the district court’s determination of the easement’s lo cation is
not clearly erroneous, and the district court did not abuse its discretion by finding appellant
in civil constructive contempt of court.
FACTS
Appellant Michael Norman Andersen is the fee owner of a parcel of land in
Concord Township. Un til 1984, a township road running across Andersen’s property
provided hunting and fishing access to a neighboring property. In April 1984, Concord
Township vacated the town road pursuant to Minn. Stat. § 160.09, subd. 3 (1984) , and
granted a perpetual easement over Andersen’s property to respondent Robert J. Buehler,
the owner of the neighboring parcel. The town meeting minutes vacating the road and
establishing the easement were filed with the county recorder and Andersen did not appeal
the vacation of the town road, nor the establishment of the easement over his property.
In 2014, Buehler entered an agreement with respondent Charles W. Giesler that
permitted Giesler to hunt on Buehler’s property. That spring, Giesler and respondent
Douglas J. Rhodes used the easement to access Buehler’s land for hunting. In July 2014,
Andersen commenced suit against Buehler, Giesler, and Rhodes ( the neighbors) to quiet
title to his property, and for trespass. Andersen later amended his compl aint to include a
claim for relief against respondent Concord Township ( the township), contesting the
existence of the easement.

3
After a hearing, the district court issued its preliminary findings by letter and
recommended that the parties attempt settle ment with regard to the easement’s location.
The parties were unable to agree. In its 2017 order, the district court found that Buehler’s
property was landlocked and does not have legal access “other than by use of the easement
over the Andersen Property,” and dismissed Andersen’s challenge to the easement with
prejudice as “untimely under Minnesota law.” The district court determined that Buehler
“possesses an easement , no greater than 16 feet wide , over the Subject Property for
purposes of ingress and egress from the Buehler Property over the Andersen Property
pursuant to the Town Board’s action on August 12, 1984.” The district court also found
that Giesler and Rhodes did not trespass and dismissed Andersen’s action with prejudice.
In 2018, the neighbors moved to hold Andersen in constructive civil contempt for
violating the district court’s 2017 order, alleging that Andersen blocked their access to the
easement by placing trees across the easement, piling snow across the easement, and
blocking the easement with sixteen large concrete blocks. After completing a survey of
his property, which identified a “potential access easement,” Andersen moved to amend
the district court’s order pursuant to Minn. R. Civ. P. 60.02, requesting that the court
clarify its order to state that the easement requested by the neighbors coincides with the
“Surveyed Easement.”
After a hearing, the district court issued an order denying Andersen’s motion for
amended findings, noting that the “Subject Property is defined at paragraph 5 of the Court
Order and was the Township Road, also known as the Moreland Road. For purposes of
clarification, the Court will now use ‘Moreland easement’ to be clear as to the location.”

4
The district court also noted that “throughout the entirety of the case” it had requested that
the parties survey the property and negotiate alternate access, even delaying entry of the
January 20 findings to allow the parties more time to reach agreement. But the parties did
not provide a survey or alternate acc ess until Andersen moved to amend the order.
Accordingly, the district court rejected Andersen’s request to move the easement as “being
untimely, not the result of mistake, inadvertence, surprise, excusable neglect, nor is there
any reason justifying relief from the January 20, 2017” order. The district court also made
a factual finding that Andersen’s proposed alternate access “does not extend fully to the
Buehler landlocked parcel, nor is the surface and grade of the alternative access of such
quality to permit access during all seasons and periods of adverse weather.”
With respect to the contempt motion, the district court found that Andersen
“intentionally and willfully violated the Court’s Order by interfering with the reasonable
use” of the easement by leaving downed trees across the easement, by causing a large pile
of snow to be placed on the easement which blocked access, by placing “16 extra -large
concrete blocks” across the easement, and by intentionally downing trees to block the
easement after the blocks were removed. The district court noted that “[a]s of the date of
the hearing, trees were still blocking access to the Moreland easement.” The district court
further found that Andersen’s “willful disobedience of the Court Order has impede d and
prejudiced [the neighbors’] reasonable use and enjoyment of the Moreland easement” and
caused them to suffer actual loss. The district court granted the neighbors’ motion and
found Andersen in constructive civil contempt. The district court stayed an indefinite jail
sentence on the condition that Andersen remove all access obstructions from the easement

5
within ten days, not interfere with the neighbors’ reasonable use and enjoyment, and pay
attorney fees.
D E C I S I O N
Andersen appeals from the district court order denying his Minn. R. Civ. P. 60.02
motion. “The decision whether to grant Rule 60.02 relief is based on all the surrounding
facts of each specific case, and is committed to the sound discretion of the distric t court.
As such, a district court will not be reversed on appeal except f or a clear abuse of
discretion.” Gams v. Houghton , 884 N.W.2d 611, 620 (Minn. 2016) (citations and
quotations omitted). Andersen challenges the district court’s factual findings with regard
to the location of the easement.
[W]e review the district court’s factual findings for clear error.
That is, we examine the record to see if there is reasonable
evidence in the record to support the court’s findings. And
when determining whether a finding of fact is clearly
erroneous, we view the evidence in the light most favorable to
the verdict. To conclude that findings of fact are clearly
erroneous we must be left with the definite and firm conviction
that a mistake has been made.

Rasmussen v. Two Harbors Fish Co., 832 N.W.2d 790, 797 (Minn. 2013) (quotations and
citations omitted).
Andersen contends that the district court improperly changed the location of the
easement from the section line of his property, to the vacated road. Andersen argues that
the district court’s January 2017 order (Order I) placed the easement on the section line of
his property. Order I states:
Prior to April 12, 1984, a Township road extended north and
south along the section line commencing from a point at th e

6
Northwest corner of the Southwest Quarter (SW1/4) of
Section 13 and the Northeast corner of the Southeast Quarter
(SE1/4) of Section 14, thence South one mile to its termination
point at Southwest corner of the Northeast Quarter (NE1/4) of
Section 23 (hereinafter “Subject Property”).

Order I further states that when the town board vacated the road in 1984, it “established
an easement over the Subject Property.” The district court concluded in Order I that
Buehler “possess es an easement, no greater th an 16 feet wide, over the Subject
Property . . . .”
In the district court’s October 2018 order (Order II) the district court stated that the
“Subject Property” was defined in Order I as “the Township Road, also known as the
Moreland Road.” Based on the unambiguous language of Order I and Order II, it does
not appear that the district court modified the location of the easement. Rather, the district
court recognized the existing easement, pursuant to the township’s action in 1984 and
specified in Order II that references to the “Subject Property” meant the vacated township
road. The district court’s factual finding is well -grounded in the record, and we discern
no error.
Andersen challenges the district court’s decision to hold him in contempt. On
review of a district court’s decision whether to hold a party in contempt, the factual
findings are subject to reversal only if they are clearly erroneous, while the district court’s
decision to invoke its contempt powers is subject to reversal only for an a buse of
discretion. Mower Cty. Human Servs. ex rel. Swancutt v. Swancutt, 551 N.W.2d 219, 222
(Minn. 1996).

7
Andersen’s argument regarding the contempt issue rests on the premise that the
easement is not located over the vacated town road. Andersen contends that he didn’t
violate the order because the easement was located a long the section line itself, which he
did not block. Both the court’s orders and the town meeting minutes from the 1984
vacation unambiguously state that the easement i s located over t he vacated road.
Andersen doesn’t deny that he blocked the vacated road. Thus, the district court did not
abuse its discretion by concluding that Andersen violated its order.
Affirmed.