Aug. 9—- Three years ago in July of 2022, and just days before the scheduled closing on a 40-acre property intended to be a Chippewa County park, Robert W. Starbeck filed a civil lawsuit claiming adverse possession and a prescriptive easement to the property south of
On July 29, Starbeck was back to the Minnesota Court of Appeals for a second time in the civil litigation, this time with a new attorney. Two rulings by the Chippewa County District Court and a Court of Appeals decision, in the years since the initial lawsuit was filed, have denied his claims.
Attorney John Mack, of New London, raised two main issues in oral arguments before a three-judge panel hearing this latest appeal.
Mack challenged the $43,900 in damages that District Judge Thomas Van Hon ordered Starbeck to pay the owners of the property, Dennis and Mary Gibson and Keith and the late Vicki Poier.
“The $43,000 judgment is so egregious that it needs to be addressed,” said Mack, who opened his oral arguments focused on the award.
The attorney charged that the award was based on the judge’s determination that his client’s motive was malicious in filing the lawsuit to prevent the sale of the land for a county park. The majority of the damages are for attorney fees.
Mack told the court that attorney fees cannot be awarded when a case is not frivolous, regardless of its motive. The Court of Appeals had decided in its first ruling in the case that there was merit to examining the basis for Starbeck’s claim. The District Court subsequently did so, and denied the claim, which has led to this appeal.
In this latest appeal, Starbeck again challenges the District Court’s ruling that he did not meet the criteria for establishing adverse possession, sometimes called “squatters’ rights.” He charges the judge lacked evidence to make that determination.
In the last Chippewa County District Court ruling, the judge determined that he “lacked merit” for both his claim of adverse possession and a prescriptive easement, which would provide him with access to the land but not ownership.
Adverse possession makes a claim of actual ownership of property if certain requirements are met, versus a prescriptive easement that grants use of a property, by someone who is not the owner, based on prior and continuous use without permission.
In his oral arguments, Mack focused on the adverse possession claim. He told the judges that Starbeck met the standard of exclusivity required for adverse possession, contrary to the District Court’s finding.
While Starbeck “tolerated” the public use of the property allowed by its owners, he acted to exclude those to whom he objected, such as people drinking beer and partying, Mack explained.
In his rebuttal, attorney Richard Stermer, of Montevideo, representing the landowners, told the justices that the award for damages was made on the basis that the judge found Starbeck’s actions to block the land sale constituted tortious interference and slander of title that harmed them — meaning intentional disruption of a contract and making a false statement about a title. The filing of the civil lawsuit purposely blocked the scheduled $66,000 sale.
Stermer also challenged Mack’s claims that Starbeck met the criteria for adverse possession. One of the five elements needed for the claim is to show 15 years of continuous use, and Starbeck clearly could not, according to Stermer.
Starbeck lived away from the property for several years while working and raising a family. He spent time in prison during a portion of the time for which he claimed exclusivity over the property, according to the attorney.
Stermer charged that Mack “misrepresented” the timing of Starbeck’s use of the property in his filings with the Court of Appeals.
Stermer told the judges that Starbeck himself testified that his purpose in filing the lawsuit was to prevent the sale of the property to the county.
The county was awarded a $170,000 grant from the Legislative-Citizen Commission on Minnesota Resources in 2020 to acquire the land and develop a new county park. The award required the county to complete the land acquisition by June 30, 2025, or lose the funding.
The 2025 Legislature acted to extend the period for the county to complete the sale and obtain the grant award until June 30, 2026.
Stermer told the appeals court judges that, beginning in 1974, the Gibsons and Poiers made it known that they intended the property to be used by the public. “That was their vision,” he said.
He told the judges that as a result, it was used for many years by the
as an outdoor classroom.
The panel hearing the oral arguments included Judges Louise Dovre Bjorkman, Diane B. Bratvold and Randall J. Slieter. Judge Bjorkman said they were taking the matter under advisement and would be making a determination within a 90-day time period.