County of Wright, Respondent,

This opinion will be unpublished and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
A20-0226

County of Wright,
Respondent,

vs.

Robin Ann Schiel,
Defendant,

Korie Allan Schiel,
Appellant.

Filed July 27, 2020
Affirmed
Worke, Judge

Wright County District Court
File No. 86-CV-19-2959

Thomas N. Kelly, Wright Coun ty Attorney, Greg T. Kryzer, Assistant County Attorney,
Buffalo, Minnesota (for respondent)

Korie Allan Schiel, South Haven, Minnesota (pro se appellant)

Considered and decided by Jesson, Presiding Judge; Worke, Judge; and Hooten,
Judge.
U N P U B L I S H E D O P I N I O N
WORKE, Judge
Appellant challenges summary judgment in favor of respondent-county in an action
to enforce zoning ordinances. We affirm.

2
FACTS
Defendant Robin Ann Schiel owns four parcels of property in South Haven,
Minnesota, along Lake Francis. Robin Schiel’s son, pro se appellant Korie Allan Schiel,
lived with her on the property. The property is zoned Urban/Rural Transitional/Shoreland.
Zoning ordinances that govern the property are enforced by respondent County of Wright
(the county).
In July 2018, the county sent a letter to Robin Schiel stating that it had been notified
that she was living in a motor home on her property and advised that an ordinance
prohibited a motor home’s use as a dwelling. She was also notified that the location of the
motor home violated setback requirements. The county ordered her to cease using the
motor home as a dwelling and to relocate it.
In May 2019, after the Schiels failed to co mply with the county ’s directives, the
county sought a permanent in junction that would require th e Schiels to take action in
compliance with the county’s ordinances and to abate nuisances on the property.
In June 2019, the county’s de partment of public health sent Robin Schiel a notice to
abate and remove public-health nuisances on her property. The notice stated that the
property was a public-health nu isance due to exposed waste, the accumulation of waste
and decaying substances that harbored diseas e-carrying insects, and the infestation and
breeding grounds of insects. On July 12, 2019, Robin Schi el received a notice from the
department of public health stating that an inspection had been completed on the property
and it was determined that she had abated the public-health nuisances. The abatement of
the public-health nuisances, however, did not resolve the zoning-ordinance violations.

3
In August 2019, the coun ty moved for summary judgment on its request for a
permanent injunction. On D ecember 16, 2019, following a he aring at which the Schiels
were represented by counsel, the district court filed an order granting the county’s motion
for summary judgment. The district court determined that the Schiels have been living in
the motor home, which violated the ordinance that prohibits a motor home from being used
as a dwelling. The district court also determined that the county provided ample evidence
that the motor home’s placement violated setback requirements. The district court
concluded that the county was entitled to a permanent injunction because it had no legal
remedy and the injunction was “necessary to prevent a great and irreparable harm” of
preventing the county from exercising its authority to govern. The district court authorized
the county to remove the motor home, but allo wed the Schiels to reclaim their property
within 14 days of removal. The district court also stayed the order for 30 days to allow the
Schiels to take corrective action. This appeal followed.
D E C I S I O N
The district court granted the county’s mo tion for summary judgment in its pursuit
of a permanent injunction. A district court must grant summa ry judgment if the movant
shows that there is no genuine issue of material fact and that it is entitled to judgment as a
matter of law. Fletcher Props., Inc. v. City of Minneapolis, 931 N.W.2d 410, 417 (Minn.
App. 2019); Minn. R. Civ. P. 56.01. This court reviews a district court’s summary-
judgment decision de novo, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the party
against whom summary judgment was granted. Riverview Muir Doran, LLC v. JADT Dev.

4
Grp., LLC, 790 N.W.2d 167, 170 (Minn. 2010); State Farm Fire & Cas. v. Aquila Inc., 718
N.W.2d 879, 883 (Minn. 2006).
This court reviews a district court’s decision granting permanent injunctive relief
for an abuse of discretion. Cherne Industr, Inc. v. Grounds & Assocs., Inc. , 278 N.W.2d
81, 91 (Minn. 1979). “A district court’s findings regarding entitlement to injunctive relief
will not be set aside unle ss clearly erroneous.” Haley v. Forcelle , 669 N.W.2d 48, 55
(Minn. App. 2003), review denied (Minn. Nov. 25, 2003).
Korie Schiel raises three primary arguments—he argues that the Schiels abated the
nuisance, that it was illegal to grant the perm anent injunction, and that all actions done
under inherent equitable authority must be corrected.
Regarding his first argument, Schiel assert s that he has a letter of compliance to
prove that the Schiels abat ed the nuisance. But Schi el relies on the July 12, 2019
compliance letter from the county’s department of public health regarding the abatement
of the public-health nuisance s. This was not a notice of compliance w ith the zoning
ordinances at issue here.
Because the Schiels failed to present any evidence to create a genuine issue of
material fact on the county’s summary-judgment motion, we cannot agree with Schiel on
his remaining arguments. The evidence showed that there was no genuine issue of material
fact as to whether the Schiels lived in the motor home and that the placement of the motor
home on the property violated setback requirements.
Finally, Schiel raises complaints that arose after the district court’s order—he claims
that the motor home was damaged and sold at auction. Although Schiel does not explain

5
why the Schiels did not take advantage of the district court staying the summary-judgment
order for 30 days and become compliant with the ordinances, this issue is not properly
before this court because it occurred after th e district court’s order. And a party may not
raise an issue or argument fo r the first time on appeal. Thiele v. Stich, 425 N.W.2d 580,
582 (Minn. 1988).
In conclusion, the district court determin ed that the Schiels lived in a motor home,
which violated an ordinance. The district court determined that the location of the motor
home violated setback requirements, which violat ed an ordinance. Schiel does not assert
any argument on appeal to challenge the accur acy of these determinations. Accordingly,
the district court did not err in granting the county’s motion for summary judgment.
The district court also determined th at the county provided the Schiels an
opportunity to abide by the or dinances and unsuccessfully atte mpted to pursue the issue
criminally. Accordingly, the district court did not abuse its discretion by determining that
the county did not have a remedy at law and that the injunction was the only way to enforce
the ordinances.
Affirmed.