In Re: Johnson Farms Objection to Delinquency Property Taxes.

This opinion is nonprecedential except as provided by
Minn. R. Civ. App. P. 136.01, subd. 1(c).

STATE OF MINNESOTA
IN COURT OF APPEALS
A20-1310

In Re: Johnson Farms Objection to Delinquency Property Taxes.

Filed June 21, 2021
Affirmed
Slieter, Judge

Hennepin County District Court
File No. 27-CV-20-4486

Ronald R. Johnson and Dee L. Johnson, Excelsior, Minnesota (pro se appellants)

Michael O. Freeman, Hennepin County Attorney, Sara L. Bruggeman, Assistant County
Attorney, Minneapolis, Minnesota (for respondent County of Hennepin)

Considered and decided by Slieter, Pres iding Judge; Johnson, Judge; and Hooten,
Judge.
NONPRECEDENTIAL OPINION
SLIETER, Judge
Appellants challenge the district court’s order for judgment of delinquent property
taxes. Because the three defenses available to appellants—exemption from property taxes,
that the property taxes have been paid, or a jurisdictional defect—were not raised by
appellants in their response to the county’s tax assessment, we affirm.
FACTS
Appellants Ronald R. Johnson and Dee L. Johnson own approximately 20 acres of
land in Hennepin County. In February 20 20, respondent Hennepin County notified the

2
district court administrator that the Johnsons’ 2019 property taxes were delinquent. After
that notice was sent, Hennepin County sent a notice of the de linquency to the Johnsons.
The Johnsons filed a timely answer with the district court objecting to the delinquency
notice. They alleged in their answer that a portion of the taxed property had been taken by
the city in 1994 and thus was not subject to taxation.
Hennepin County mo ved for judgment on the pleadi ngs pursuant to Minn. R. Civ.
P. 12.03 (“After the pleadings are closed but within such time as not to delay the trial, any
party may move for judgment on the pleadings.”). Following a hearing on the motion, the
district court granted Hennepin County’s motion, concluding that the Johnsons did not raise
either of the “two defenses” permitted by Minnesota Statutes section 279 to be raised in a
delinquent-tax proceeding: that the property was exempt from taxation, or that the taxes
had been paid. The district court found the Johnsons did no t “present a receipt of taxes
paid or point to an applicable provision of [the statute] de fining exempt property.” This
appeal follows.
DECISION
Property tax delinquency proceedings ar e guided by Minn. Stat. §§ 279.001-.37
(2020). Section 279.05 provides that “[o]n or before February 15t h, in each year, the
county auditor shall file with the court administrator of the district court of the county a list
of the delinquent taxes upon real estate w ithin the county.” Mi nn. Stat. § 279.05.
Following receipt of such notice, “[a]ny person having any estate, right, title, or interest in,
or lien upon, any parcel of land embraced in such list . . . may file with the court
administrator of the district court an answer setting forth a defense or objection to the tax

3
or penalty against such parcel of land.” Minn. Stat. § 279.15. The answer “shall . . . set
forth in concise language the facts constituti ng the defense or objec tion to such tax or
penalty.” Id. If the district court determines that no valid defense is raised in the answer
and that “all provisions of law in relation to assessment and levy of taxes have been
complied with,” then “judgment shall be re ndered for such taxes and the penalties and
costs.” Minn. Stat. § 279.19. “It shall always be a defense . . . that the taxes have been
paid, or that the property was not subject to taxation.” Id.
The supreme court clarified that “ the only defenses available in a delinquent tax
proceeding ([chapter] 279) are that the land is exempt from taxation , that the taxes have
been paid, or perhaps other jurisdictional defects.” State v. Elam , 84 N.W.2d 227, 231
(Minn. 1957) (emphasis added). The language of the statute has not meaningfully changed
since Elam.
The Johnsons do not allege any of the 103-listed exemptions from payment of
property taxes as identified in Minnesota St atutes section 272.02 (2020) apply to their
property. Nor do the Johnsons allege that the taxes have been paid or that a jurisdictional
defect exists. Therefore, they have alleged none of the three available defenses pursuant
to section 279, and rule 12 dismissal was proper.
The Johnsons also argued in district c ourt and maintain on appeal that the
assessment constitutes an une qual assessment, that the por tion of the pr operty taken by
Hennepin County in 1994 was excluded from taxation, and that the assessment violated the
Takings Clause and their right to due process provided by the Fifth and Fourteenth
Amendments to the United States Constitution. The district court appropriately did not

4
consider those arguments. Elam held that section 278 “is the exclusive remedy” for a
taxpayer to raise other defenses. 84 N.W.2d at 282. Therefore, in accordance with Elam,
these are impermissible defenses in a delinquent-tax proceeding pursuant to section 279.
In sum, because the Johnsons failed to plead a valid defense and Hennepin County’s
complaint sets forth a legally sufficient claim for payment of delinquent property taxes, the
district court properly granted judgment to Hennepin County on the pleadings.
Affirmed.