Troy K Scheffler, Appellant,

This opinion is nonprecedential except as provided by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
A23-1976

Troy K Scheffler,
Appellant,

vs.

Lake Edward Township,
Respondent,

County of Crow Wing,
Respondent.

Filed July 22, 2024
Affirmed
Worke, Judge

Crow Wing County District Court
File No. 18-CV-23-1400

Troy Scheffler, Merrifield, Minnesota (pro se appellant)

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

Donald F. Ryan, Crow Wing County Attorney, Stephanie Shook, Assistant County
Attorney, Brainerd, Minnesota (for respondent County of Crow Wing)

Considered and decided by Schmidt, Presiding Judge; Worke, Judge; and Harris ,
Judge.
2
NONPRECEDENTIAL OPINION
WORKE, Judge
Appellant challenges the district court’s dismissal of his complaint under Minn. R.
Civ. P. 12.02(e) for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. We affirm.
FACTS
Appellant Troy K Scheffler petitioned respondent Lake Edward Township (the
township) for a cartway pursuant to Minn. Stat. § 164.08 (2020). On July 29, 2021, the
township board adopted a resolution requiring Scheffler to post security in the amount of
$15,000 to cover the estimated costs the township would incur in connection with
proceeding on the cartway petition. Scheffler refused to post the security and petitioned
the district court for a writ of mandamus to compel the township to proceed with the
development of the cartway. The district court denied the petition. Scheffler appealed and
this court affirmed the district court’s decision.1
Scheffler never posted the security. The township adopted a resolution deeming the
cartway petition withdrawn. The township emailed Scheffler an invoice for $1,312.51 for
costs associated with processing the cartway petition. In April 2022, the township adopted
and emailed Scheffler a copy of the resolution. The charges were then levied as an
assessment against real property owned by Scheffler.2

1 See Scheffler v. Lake Edward Twp., No. A20-1472 (Minn. App. June 21, 2021).
2 See Minn. Stat. § 366.012 (2020) (providing procedure for town to collect unpaid service
charges from recipient of services provided by town).
3
Scheffler appealed to the district court challenging the township’s action. In his
complaint, Scheffler requested relief for the following claims: (1) the assessment failed to
meet the statutory requirements pursuant to Chapter 429; (2) attorney fees associated with
the cartway petition are unreasonable and are not allowed under Chapter 429; and (3) the
township failed to give proper notice of the assessment. The township moved the district
court to dismiss for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted pursuant to
rule 12.02(e).
The district court determined that the applicable statute is section 366.012;
accordingly, it did not have jurisdiction over the claim.3 The district court granted the
township’s motion and dismissed Scheffler’s complaint with prejudice for failing to state
a claim upon which relief can be granted. This appeal followed.
DECISION
Scheffler argues that the district court erred when it deter mined that it did not have
jurisdiction and dismissed his complaint for failing to state a claim upon which relief can
be granted. The district court noted two grounds for its dismissal of the claims. First, that
Minn. Stat. § 366.012, not Chapter 429, governs. Second, that when a petitioner challenges
an action under section 366.012, the appropriate remedy is a writ of certiorari.
Appellate courts review de novo “whether a complaint sets forth a legally sufficient
claim for relief.” Walsh v. U.S. Bank, N.A., 851 N.W.2d 598, 606 (Minn. 2014). When

3 See Great W. Indus. Park, LLC v. Randolph Twp., 853 N.W.2d 155, 156 (Minn. App.
2014) (reviewing, by writ of certiorari, whether section 366.012 authorized township to
certify expenses for collection from property taxes).
4
reviewing a district court’s decision to dismiss a complaint for failure to state a claim, the
reviewing court considers “only the facts alleged in the complaint, accepting those facts as
true and [the appellate court] must construe all reasonable inferences in favor of the
nonmoving party.” Park Nicollet Clinic v. Hamann, 808 N.W.2d 828, 831 (Minn. 2011)
(quotation omitted).
Whether the district court had “[j]urisdiction here depends on statutory
interpretation and whether there is a quasi-judicial decision, each of which we review de
novo.” Reetz v. City of Saint Paul, 956 N.W.2d 238, 243 (Minn. 2021).
“Absent a right of review provided by statute or appellate rule, certiorari is the
exclusive method to review a municipality’s quasi-judicial decision.” Randolph ,
853 N.W.2d at 156. We may reverse or modify a municipality’s decision when “the
municipality made an error of law.” Id. A quasi-judicial decision is one that requires:
“(1) investigation into a disputed claim and weighing of evidentiary facts; (2) application
of those facts to a prescribed standard; and (3) a binding decision regarding the disputed
claim.” Reetz, 956 N.W.2d at 243 (quotation omitted).
In Randolph, this court reviewed a township’s certification to collect unpaid
expenses pursuant to section 366.012 in a certiorari appeal, and that is the exclusive method
to review such a quasi -judicial decision. 853 N.W.2d at 156-57. Therefore, Scheffler’s
complaint was properly dismissed for failing to state a claim upon which relief can be
granted.
Affirmed.