author: DORIS O. HUSPENI, Judge

text:
    Richard K. McNAMARA, et al. Petitioners, Appellants, v. OFFICE OF STRATEGIC AND LONG RANGE PLANNING, et al. Respondents, Town of Forest Lake, Appellant, City of Forest Lake, Respondent, Resident Annexation Petitioners (One Great Forest Lake), Respondent, Independent School District No. 831, et al. Respondents Below.
    No. C0-00-1704.
    Court of Appeals of Minnesota.
    May 22, 2001.
    Review Denied Aug. 22, 2001.

      Kevin Kenneth Shoeberg, Kevin K. Shoeberg, P.A., Woodbury, MN, (for appellants McNamara, et al. and Town of Forest Lake).
    Mike Hatch, Attorney General, Kenneth E. Raschke, Jr., Assistant Attorney General, St. Paul, MN, (for respondent Office of Strategic and Long Range Planning and Office of Administrative Hearings).
    David K. Hebert, Hebert, Welch & Humphreys, P.A., Forest Lake, MN, (for respondent city of Forest Lake).
    Dale G. Swanson, Forest Lake, MN, (for respondent Resident Annexation Petitioners (One Great Forest Lake)).
    Considered and decided by TOUSSAINT, Chief Judge, AMUNDSON, and HUSPENI, Judges.
   OPINION

DORIS O. HUSPENI, Judge

Appellants, several residents of the Town of Forest Lake, challenge a district court order affirming an administrative law judge order that annexed the Town of Forest Lake to the City of Forest Lake. Appellants contend that (1) the ALJ did not have jurisdiction over the annexation proceedings; (2) the order for annexation was contrary to the law and evidence; (3) the annexation unconstitutionally violated the voting rights of the residents of the newly annexed area; and (4) the annexation resulted in an unconstitutional taxation of the residents of the newly annexed area. Because we conclude that the decision to annex the Town of Forest Lake to the City of Forest Lake was authorized by law, was supported by substantial evidence, and did not violate the constitutional rights of the residents of the newly annexed area, we affirm.

FACTS

The Forest Lake community (Community) consists of two local government units, the City of Forest Lake (City) and the Town of Forest Lake (Town). The community is located within the seven-county metropolitan area, specifically Washington County, and has been the beneficiary of much development, most of which is attributable to the city. Because the town substantially surrounds the city and because they share the body of water known as Forest Lake, the town and city cooperate on decisions that will affect the community.

The key difference between the city and the town is their present forms of government. The town form of government is appropriate for rural areas and emphasizes citizen participation in the governmental decision-making process. The city form of government is appropriate for urban and suburban areas as it provides much broader taxing, regulatory, and economic development powers.

The town has considered incorporating into a city in order to address concerns related to urbanization and economic development. Because the town wishes to remain autonomous, it has filed numerous petitions for incorporation into a municipal entity to be known as the City of Forest Shores. However, some of the residents of the town as well as the Metropolitan Council believe that the town should obtain the benefits of the city form of government by merging with the city, either through annexation or consolidation. These divided beliefs have resulted in numerous proceedings on annexation or incorporation since 1960, before the Minnesota Municipal Board (MMB), the Washington County District Court, and this court. The present appeal is the result of competing petitions for annexation to the city and incorporation of the town.

In April 1999, two petitions for annexation were filed with the MMB. One petition was submitted by Independent School District No. 831 for the annexation of a limited portion of township property to be used in the construction of a new junior high school. The other was a petition of approximately 200 residents of the town (respondent One Great Forest Lake) seeking annexation of the entire town to the city. A short time later, the town board filed a petition for incorporation from a township to a city. The petitions were consolidated and a hearing was scheduled with the MMB.

Before the hearing was held, the Minnesota legislature passed Minn.Stat. § 414.11 (Supp.1999). That statute terminated the MMB effective June 1, 1999, and transferred its authority to the Minnesota Office of Strategic and Long Range Planning (respondent Planning Office). The Commissioner of Administration then directed the Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH) to assume the work of the planning office and assigned an Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) to conduct administrative hearings and issue an order on the consolidated petitions.

A town resident, Frederic Knaak, petitioned this court for a writ of prohibition, claiming that the ALJ did not have jurisdiction to conduct the scheduled hearing. In November 1999, this court ruled that the ALJ and the OAH did have authority under MinmStat. § 16B.037 (1998).

The administrative hearing commenced in December 1999 and the ALJ issued an order in March 2000, denying incorporation of the town into a separate municipal entity and granting annexation of the town to the city, for the creation of a single municipal entity. The order made annexation effective May 16, 2000.

Subsequently, appellants sought review by the district court. The town sought an injunction staying the effects of the annexation. The district court stayed annexation and issued a temporary injunction pending its decision on the appeal. In September 2000, the district court affirmed the ALJ’s decision and retroactively annexed the town to the city.

Elections for city council were held on November 7, 2000. Because the district court lifted the injunction after the last day for filing for candidacy, no residents of the newly annexed area appeared on the electoral ballot. The electoral ballot, however, allowed for write-in candidates. The present city council does not contain any representatives from the newly annexed area.

ISSUES

1. Do appellants have standing to challenge the annexation?

II. Did the ALJ have jurisdiction to hear the consolidated annexation and incorporation petitions?

III. Does the law and evidence support the ALJ’s decision?

IV. Did annexation unconstitutionally interfere with the voting rights of the residents of the newly annexed area?

V. Do taxes imposed by the City deprive residents of the newly annexed area of their constitutional due process rights?

ANALYSIS

I.

Respondent One Great Forest Lake (OGFL) argues initially that appellants do not have standing to seek appellate review of the decision of the ALJ. See Minn.Stat. § 414.07, subd. 2 (2000) (permitting persons aggrieved by a decision to appeal an annexation); Minn. R. 6000.0100, subp. 2 (1999) (defining who may be considered a party for purposes of contesting an annexation). We disagree.

It is well established in the law that a town and township residents have standing to challenge the validity of an annexation because they will be affected either favorably or adversely by any decision to annex the township to an abutting city. See, e.g., Town of Stillwater v. Minnesota Mun. Comm’n, 300 Minn. 211, 219 N.W.2d 82, 87 (1974) (recognizing that a township has a right to, and an interest in, challenging an order for annexation but that the right of appeal is limited to review under section 414.07); City of Glencoe v. Beneke, 288 Minn. 190, 194, 179 N.W.2d 279, 281 (1970) (stating that appellant-township residents had the right to challenge the merits of the annexation); see also City of Lake Elmo v. City of Oakdale, 468 N.W.2d 575, 577 (Minn.App.1991) (stating that section 414.07 provided authority to review an appeal for concurrent attachment and annexation of residential properties from one city to another brought by property owners). Therefore, this argument is without merit.

II.

Appellants argue that the ALJ, as appointed by the planning office, did not have the proper statutory authority to consider the annexation and incorporation petitions. We disagree. This court in a previous order determined that the ALJ did have jurisdiction to hear and render a decision on the annexation and incorporation petitions involved here. In re Knaak v. State, No. C7-99-1871 (Minn. App. Nov. 24, 1999). That holding became the law of the case and is no longer subject to challenge by appellants. Mattson v. Underwriters at Lloyds of London, 414 N.W.2d 717, 719-20 (Minn.1987) (refusing appellate review because doctrine of law of the case precludes relitigation of an issue previously decided on appeal in the same case).

Further, we find no merit in appellants’ additional claim that the ALJ lacked jurisdiction to proceed because the petition for annexation was allegedly fraudulent. The validity of the petition was not challenged until September 7, 2000, well after an ALJ had issued an order for annexation. Therefore, any challenge must be deemed to have been waived. Meyer v. Village of Waite Park, 278 Minn. 20, 25-26, 152 N.W.2d 778, 781 (1967) (holding that challenge to annexation petition was not valid where substantial action had already been taken in furtherance of the annexation); see also Crystal Green v. City of Crystal, 421 N.W.2d 393, 394 (Minn.App.1988) (holding that challenge to validity of dedication fees was waived where the challenger failed to challenge the fees prior to final action on plat application), review denied (Minn. May 25, 1988). Accordingly, the ALJ maintained jurisdiction over the annexation and incorporation.

III.

Appellants next argue that the ALJ’s decision, which (1) denied the town’s application for incorporation into a separate municipal entity and (2) granted the annexation petition, annexing the town to the city, was unsupported by the evidence and based on an erroneous application of the law. The Minnesota legislature has provided a set of nearly identical factors to be considered when reviewing a petition for either incorporation or annexation. Minn. Stat. §§ 414.02, subd. 3, .031, subd. 4 (2000). After reviewing the factors, incorporation or annexation may be ordered if it is in the best interests of the subject area. Minn.Stat. §§ 414.02, subd. 3(m), .031, subd. 4(n).

Once the order for annexation or incorporation has been made, the decision enjoys a presumption of correctness. Town of Forest Lake v. Minnesota Mun. Bd., 497 N.W.2d 289, 291 (Minn.App.1993), review denied (Minn. Apr. 29, 1993). Therefore, on review, we will not interfere with the decision unless the decision is either based on an erroneous theory of law or is not supported by substantial evidence in the record. Id.; see also Township of Thomastown v. City of Staples, 323 N.W.2d 742, 744 (Minn.1982) (reviewing court may not substitute its decision for that of the agency).

A. Theory of Law Supporting Annexation

Appellants argue that the ALJ proceeded on an erroneous theory of law when permitting annexation, despite the lack of a written plan of the services the city planned to offer to residents of the newly annexed area. Minn.Stat. § 414.031, subd. 4(i), requires an annexation order to consider the “[pjlans and programs by the annexing municipality for providing needed governmental services to the subject area.” It is undisputed here that the city did not submit a written document that formalized its plans for providing services to the newly annexed area. Therefore, the issue is whether the lack of a written plan for future services precludes annexation.

While it may be typical for a municipality to have written plans related to a proposed annexation, neither the statute nor caselaw appears to require a municipality to submit a formal, written plan. In fact, it is generally recognized that plans and policies may exist despite the fact that they have not been reduced to writing. See Bloss v. University of Minn. Bd. of Regents, 590 N.W.2d 661, 666-67 (Minn.App.1999) (holding that the application of statutory immunity is not contingent on whether a policy has been reduced to writing). Therefore, we conclude that the decision of the ALJ to permit annexation was not based on an erroneous application of the law.

Furthermore, a review of the evidence in the record clearly demonstrates that these two local government units had already established sophisticated plans and programs that enabled them to harmoniously provide governmental services to the Forest Lake community, now and well into the future. First, at the direction of the Metropolitan Council, the town’s comprehensive plan was prepared so that it would be compatible with the city’s comprehensive plan and would not preclude a joint plan with the city at a later time. In addition, the town and the city have generally agreed to restrict the most intensive development and to foster creation of a community center to an area near the lake, within the city. Because the town already had a comprehensive plan and land use controls in place that were compatible with the city’s, the city planned only to hire planning consultants to review the plans and controls for uniformity.

Second, the city staff are not unfamiliar with the town’s operation or needs. The present city administrator of the city, Charles Robinson, was the administrator of the town from 1977 to 1994. As the township administrator, Robinson was the finance officer and zoning administrator of the town. As the city administrator, Robinson aided in outlining the various services that would be provided to the town and the method for consolidating the two entities. Those services included: (1) the city furnishing at least three police officers to the town’s department and establishing 24-hour police coverage for the entire community; (2) consolidating the administrative offices of both entities and providing administrative services; (3) hiring consultants to assist with consolidation of financial planning and budgeting; and (4) furnishing fully-treated and softened water to the high school, new junior high school, and a proposed subdivision to be built in the township. Finally, the city intended to seek a grant from the Minnesota Board of Government Innovation and Cooperation to assist in consolidation.

Third, the town and city have established plans for providing various community services. The city and town have already developed a school system to meet the needs of the community at large. Involvement in school and youth activities is not dependent on residence within either the town or the city. The city and town plan celebrations jointly. Recreational facilities are financed by community-wide efforts. The Restorative Justice Program, Theft Awareness Program, and Police Explorer Group are provided on a community-wide basis. Community facilities are not dependent upon residence. Additionally, fire services are provided on a community-wide basis.

Finally, the city and town have previously sponsored studies that analyzed consolidation of the two entities. A study through the University of Minnesota Humphrey Institute gathered information and prepared a report analyzing how the two entities should operate in order to effectively govern the entire community. Another study on facilitating a merger was conducted by the Minnesota Extension Service and paid for jointly by the town and the city. This study identified specific actions to be taken by elected officials, established a strategy for land use, and projected budgets. Following these studies, the township board and the city council held joint meetings to discuss the results. Given the enormous investment of time, energy, good faith, and financial resources expended in developing compatible land use controls, joint powers agreements, and a unified community, the inevitable conclusion is that the city did have in existence plans relating to consolidation of the two entities. To require the city to prepare a separate written plan for this annexation proceeding would not only result in duplication of efforts but in additional and unwarranted expenditure of municipal funds.

Appellants also argue that the ALJ erroneously included agricultural preserve property in the annexed property. This type of protected property may not be annexed. See Minn.Stat. § 40A.121 (2000) (agricultural property is given special protection from assessments for public improvements and may not be annexed unless it meets certain exceptions). We do not address this issue, however, because it was not argued before the ALJ. Thiele v. Stich, 425 N.W.2d 580, 582 (Minn.1988) (refusing to consider legal theories or arguments not previously raised). Even if we were to consider the merits of this claim, the claim would fail. Minn.Stat. § 40A.121, subd. 8, provides an exception, allowing for the annexation of agricultural property where, as here, the agricultural property will be surrounded by lands within the new municipality. Accordingly, the ALJ’s decision was not based on an erroneous theory of law for this reason.

B. Substantial Evidence

Appellants argue that there is not substantial evidence in the record to support the ALJ’s decision to order annexation as opposed to incorporation of the town as a separate municipal entity. Substantial evidence is defined as:

(1) more than a scintilla of evidence;
(2) such that a reasonable mind might accept it as adequate to support a conclusion; or
(3) more than “some evidence” and more than “any evidence.”

State by McClure v. Sports & Health Club, Inc., 370 N.W.2d 844, 848-49 (Minn.1985) (citation omitted).

It would be difficult, after review of a 70-page order, including 222 findings of fact, 17 conclusions of law, and a 26-page memorandum encompassing a balancing of the town’s interests between annexation and incorporation, to conclude that the ALJ’s findings were not sufficient or substantial. The town and city agree that the town requires the benefits of being incorporated as a city and is rapidly becoming urban or suburban in character. Therefore, none of the evidence presented by the town questioned the need for a change from a town form of government to a city form of government. The town’s evidence was primarily directed to why incorporation was beneficial, rather than why annexation would not be beneficial. The question before us is whether there is sufficient evidence to support the decision of the ALJ unifying the Forest Lake community by ordering annexation of the town.

Our painstaking review of the record convinces us that there is substantial evidence supporting the ALJ’s decision to deny the petition for incorporation and to grant the petition for annexation. Evidence established that: (1) a primary and immediate benefit to the town residents would be a reduction of the significant sums of taxpayer funds expended for attorney fees and consultant fees in fighting annexation and pursuing incorporation; (2) merger of the entities would allow for a united community development plan; (8) incorporation of the town would divide the community, stimulate competition for commercial and industrial development, and result in higher costs for services; (4) one elected body would better serve the needs of the Forest Lake community, Washington County, the Metropolitan Council, and the state; (5) annexation would improve financial planning and practices; (6) annexation would enable the Forest Lake community to hire more specialists; (7) the merged community would receive an increase in state aid road funds of approximately $240,000 per year; and (8) government services would be streamlined through elimination of numerous joint powers agreements.

In addition to that evidence, the “Regional Blueprint, a Comprehensive Guide Plan,” adopted by the Metropolitan Council, which governs both the city and the town, favors annexation. The Metropolitan Council presented evidence that the incorporation of the town into a separate municipal entity was not consistent with the regional policy. Rather, annexation of the town would be consistent with the regional policy and would strengthen the sense of community. The Metropolitan Council urged the annexation of the town, not incorporation, arguing that annexation would be in the best interests of the community and of the state.

We recognize that the Town presented evidence that it could operate successfully if incorporated independently. We cannot ignore, however, the very substantial evidence favoring consolidation of the two entities through annexation. See Forest Lake, 497 N.W.2d at 292 (affirming denial of incorporation where evidence demonstrated that Town of Forest Lake “has portions that are presently urban or suburban or about to become so and is adjacent to a municipality capable of providing the additional necessary services to those portions of the [t]own”) (quotation omitted); Lake Elmo, 468 N.W.2d at 579 (affirming annexation where evidence demonstrated that City of Oakdale was better able to provide services needed for developing community). Because there is substantial evidence in the record supporting the ALJ’s decision, we conclude that the ALJ did not abuse his discretion by concluding that the Forest Lake community would be better served by annexing the town to the city than it would be by incorporating the town into a separate and independent municipality.

IV.

Appellants assert that the annexation should be set aside because the constitutional rights of the residents of the newly annexed area have been violated by (1) ordering annexation without requiring a subsequent election to either affirm or disaffirm the annexation order; and (2) depriving the residents of their right to elect a representative government. Whether the annexation violated the constitutional rights of appellants is a question of law, reviewed de novo. See Frost-Benco Elec. Ass’n v. Minnesota Pub. Utils. Comm’n, 358 N.W.2d 639, 642 (Minn.1984) (reviewing questions of law de novo). The right to vote and participate in the electoral process poses a sensitive constitutional issue demanding scrupulous evaluation. Ulland v. Growe, 262 N.W.2d 412, 415 (Minn.1978). Nevertheless, appellants carry the burden of proving beyond a reasonable doubt that the annexation violated their constitutional rights. See Westling v. County of Mille Lacs, 581 N.W.2d 815, 819 (Minn.1998) (providing the challenger has the burden of establishing -beyond a reasonable doubt that state action violates a constitutional right).

A. Annexation

Appellants argue that they had a constitutional right to vote to either affirm or disaffirm the order for annexation. While we are not insensitive to the sense of frustration, voicelessness, and powerlessness expressed by appellants in response to annexation, we conclude that there was no violation of constitutional rights requiring that annexation be set aside.

It is well established that the creation of, and organization of, a local government unit is left to the sound discretion of the individual states. Hunter v. City of Pittsburgh, 207 U.S. 161, 28 S.Ct. 40, 52 L.Ed. 151 (1907). Through the Minnesota Constitution, the residents of the state have given the legislature the responsibility of establishing and regulating a system of local government. Minn. Const. art XII, § 3. The legislature has provided for the consolidation of local government units by adopting the annexation provisions in Minn.Stat. ch. 414 (2000). LaCrescent Township v. City of LaCrescent, 515 N.W.2d 608, 609-10 (Minn.App.1994). Local action in the field of annexation is thus preempted. Id. Therefore, appellants do not have a constitutional right to vote to either affirm, or disaffirm, an order for annexation. In re Independent Sch. Dist. No. 381, 298 Minn. 124, 135-36, 213 N.W.2d 631, 638 (1973); see also Town of Bridgie v. County of Koochiching, 227 Minn. 320, 35 N.W.2d 537 (1948) (stating that there are no constitutional limitations to the state’s power to relinquish the power of local officials).

There is no longer a statutory right to vote to either affirm or disaffirm an order for annexation. Former Minn.Stat. § 414.031, subd. 5 (1990) was repealed in 1992. 1992 Minn. Laws ch. 556, § 12. See Township of Fergus Falls v. City of Fergus Falls, 357 N.W.2d 428, 430 (Minn.App.1984) (requiring election on annexation under former section 414.031, subdivision 5). The Minnesota Constitution recognizes the authority of the legislature to establish and regulate local governmental systems. Although the legislature at one time provided a statutory requirement for elections regarding annexation, the legislature subsequently removed that requirement. Both actions were proper exercises of legislative authority; thus, no constitutional rights are implicated.

B. City Council

Appellants assert that they have been unconstitutionally deprived of their right to a representative form of government because individuals who were not elected by them now govern residents of the newly annexed area. We recognize the important principle that residents of a local unit of government have a right to be governed by elected officials of their choice. Hanlon v. Towey, 274 Minn. 187, 196, 142 N.W.2d 741, 746 (1966); see also Board of Estimate v. Mortis, 489 U.S. 688, 692, 109 S.Ct. 1433, 1437-38, 103 L.Ed.2d 717 (1989) (holding that the equal protection guarantee of “one person, one vote” extends to local government units). Unquestionably, an election must be held following an annexation so that the residents of the newly annexed area have an opportunity to elect a government that represents their interests. See Shakopee Mdewakanton Sioux Community v. City of Prior Lake, 771 F.2d 1153, 1159 (8th Cir.1985) (holding that residents of newly annexed area are entitled to a representative government and therefore must be permitted to participate in local government electoral process following annexation); Independent Sch. Dist. No. 35 v. Engelstad, 274 Minn. 366, 144 N.W.2d 245 (1966) (recognizing need for the election of a representative school board following annexation in view of the clear and pressing concerns of individuals with the education of their children); cf. City of Port Arthur v. United States, 459 U.S. 159, 103 S.Ct. 530, 74 L.Ed.2d 334 (1982) (protecting the voting rights of citizens following annexation). Disenfranchisement occurs when the residents of a newly annexed area are denied a reasonable opportunity to elect representatives to represent their interests. See State ex rel. S. St. Paul v. Hetherington, 240 Minn. 298, 303, 61 N.W.2d 737, 739 (1953) (stating that the fundamental right to vote is preserved when the electoral system allows the citizen to obtain a reasonable equality of representation).

In arguing that they were denied their constitutional right to elect governing officials, appellants correctly note that section 414.031 does not provide for an immediate election of a new governing body following annexation that results from a petition by township residents. Cf. Minn.Stat. § 414.031, subd. 4a (requiring election of a new governing body following a joint resolution for annexation). Appellants argue, therefore, that section 414.031 is unconstitutional as applied in this case.

We note initially the admonition that courts should not decide questions of constitutionality of statutes unless it is necessary to do so in order to resolve the issues in the case under consideration. State v. Hoyt, 304 N.W.2d 884, 888 (Minn.1981) (constitutional questions should not be decided unless doing so is necessary “to dispose of the case at bar”). While serious questions may, indeed, be raised regarding section 414.031, we conclude that appellants were not deprived of their constitutional right to elect a representative city council. In September 2000, the district court affirmed the order for annexation and terminated the injunction staying the effects of the ALJ’s order. The next regularly scheduled election occurred in November 2000, only two months later. It is uncontested that the residents of the newly annexed area were able to participate in, and vote in, the November general election. Therefore, the residents of the newly annexed area had an opportunity to elect a representative form of government within a reasonable time period following the annexation.

Two additional questions remain, however. First, might there have been a violation of the right of residents to file for elective office? Residents have a constitutional right to file for any elective office for which they are qualified. Minn. Const. art. VII, § 6; MinmStat. § 205.13 (2000); Fibers v. Growe, 502 N.W.2d 810, 813 (Minn.App.1993), review denied (Minn. Sept. 30, 1993). Appellants, however, have neither argued, nor presented any evidence, that their constitutional rights were infringed upon because they were deprived the opportunity to file for any elective office for which they are qualified. See Thiele, 425 N.W.2d at 582 (holding that appellate courts may not consider matters not argued and considered in the court below); Henning v. Village of Prior Lake, 435 N.W.2d 627, 632 (Minn.App.1989) (refusing to address constitutional argument where it was not raised below), review denied (Minn. Apr. 24, 1989). Second, did the fact that township residents could appear on the November ballots only as write-in candidates deprive them of their ability to reasonably vote for a particular candidate and to cast their votes effectively? We conclude that the answer is “no.”

It is well established in the record that this matter was of great public importance to the entire community. Once the annexation order was affirmed by the district court, there was an active write-in campaign. While none of the write-in campaign candidates were elected, they garnered a substantial number of votes. Because the November election ballot allowed residents to write in the names of candidates who they believed would best represent their interests, the residents had a reasonable opportunity to vote for a particular candidate and cast their vote effectively. See State ex rel. Town of White Bear v. City of White Bear Lake, 255 Minn. 28, 38-39, 95 N.W.2d 294, 302 (1959) (finding no constitutional violation of appellants’ electoral rights where appellants failed to show that the election did not result in a fair and free expression of the will of the voters). In reaching this conclusion, we note that “there is a strong public policy in favor of finality in elections.” Greenly v. Independent Sch. Dist. No. 316, 395 N.W.2d 86, 91 (Minn.App. 1986). Accordingly, we conclude that appellants’ constitutional right to be governed by a representative form of government has not been violated.

V.

Finally, appellants allege that taxation by the city without the provision of additional benefits and services to the newly annexed area deprived appellants of their constitutional due process rights. Where the subject of taxation cannot be said to benefit in any meaningful way from actions of the taxing authority, the imposition of taxes violates the constitutional prohibition against taking property without due process of law. Union Refrigerator Transit Co. v. Kentucky, 199 U.S. 194, 202, 26 S.Ct. 36, 37, 50 L.Ed. 150 (1905); State v. Northwest Airlines, 213 Minn. 395, 409, 7 N.W.2d 691, 698 (1942), aff'd, 322 U.S. 292, 64 S.Ct. 950, 88 L.Ed. 1283 (1944). As previously discussed, there is ample evidence in the record demonstrating the benefits the town will receive due to annexation, and the services to be provided by the city. Further, there was evidence in the record that the taxes bear a reasonable relationship to the increased services to be received. Because the residents of the newly annexed area will benefit from services provided by the city, their due process rights have not been violated. See Northwest Airlines, 213 Minn. at 409, 7 N.W.2d at 698 (holding that state had a fair basis to tax private property because the private property was the beneficiary of state-conferred benefits).

DECISION

The Office of Strategic and Long Range Planning had the authority to transfer the cross-petitions for annexation and incorporation to the Office of Administrative Hearings for assignment to an ALJ. The ALJ reached a well-reasoned, legally sound decision after making detailed findings of fact that were supported by evidence provided during* an eight-day hearing. Moreover, the constitutional rights of the residents of the newly annexed area were not violated because (1) they will receive services proportional to the taxes imposed, and (2) they had a reasonable opportunity to elect a representative governing body. Therefore, we affirm the district court’s decision, adopting the ALJ’s decision that it is in the best interest of the Forest Lake community to annex the Town of Forest Lake to the City of Forest Lake, thereby creating a single municipal entity.

Affirmed.

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

      . This appeal involves appellant residents of the town and the town itself. The school district has not appealed. Only annexation of the entire township is now at issue; no challenge is raised here to annexation of property for the construction of the junior high school.

      . We note that respondents failed to file a notice of review on the issue of whether appellants have standing to challenge the annexation. While we normally will not address an issue not appealed, "a party's standing to bring a claim may be raised at any time.” Lucio v. School Bd. of Indep. Sch. Dist. No. 625, 574 N.W.2d 737, 739 n. 2 (Minn.App.1998) (citation, omitted), review denied (Minn. Apr. 30, 1998). Therefore, we reach the merits.

      . While residents of a newly annexed area are entitled to elect a representative body, an election may be held only under constitutional or statutory authorization. Howard v. Holm, 208 Minn. 589, 593, 296 N.W. 30, 32 (1940). While the annexation statutes allow for an election following incorporation, consolidation, or annexation by joint resolution, Minn.Stat. §§ 414.02, subd. 3, .031, subd. 4a, .041, subd. 5, .09, subd. 3 (2000), there is no authority to hold an election following an order for annexation that came about as a result of a petition being filed by township residents. Minn.Stat. ch. 414 (2000).
      The ALJ, in this matter, perhaps in recognition of the constitutional right to be governed by a representative body, did order an election for a new representative body to be held within a few months of the annexation, prior to the general election. The election was never held, however, because the town obtained an injunction enjoining the election. While the issue has been rendered moot, we note that the ALJ had no power to order an election in the absence of statutory authority to do so.


source: Caselaw Access Project

author: AMUNDSON, Judge.

license: Public Domain

text:
    STATE of Minnesota, Respondent, v. Mantu Manier CRAVEN, Appellant.
    No. C5-00-1150.
    Court of Appeals of Minnesota.
    May 22, 2001.
    Review Denied Aug. 15, 2001.

      Mike Hatch, Attorney General, St. Paul; and Amy Klobuchar, Hennepin County Attorney, Michael Richardson, Assistant County Attorney, Minneapolis, for respondent.
    John M. Stuart, State Public Defender, Sara L. Martin, Assistant Public Defender; and Joseph Margulies, Margulies & Richmond, Minneapolis, for appellant.
    Considered and decided by AMUNDSON, P.J., KLAPHAKE and WILLIS, JJ.
   OPINION

AMUNDSON, Judge.

On appeal from second-degree felony-murder convictions, appellant argues that the trial court violated due process when it declined to dismiss the felony-murder charges in a case in which death accidentally resulted from appellant’s fleeing from a police officer in a motor vehicle. Appellant argues that a more specific statute prohibited flight from police causing death, the felony-murder statute did not give fair warning that appellant’s conduct would be charged as felony-murder, and the felony-murder statute was used discriminatorily based on race. Alternatively, appellant argues that the trial court should have considered fleeing causing death as a lesser-included offense.

FACTS

On August 23, 1998, Mantu Manier Craven, a 19-year-old black male, attended a barbecue in north Minneapolis with his half-brother Caine Williams. At the barbecue, Williams was using marijuana and Craven was drinking. Shortly before midnight, they left the party in a rented minivan and drove to a gas station; Craven was severely intoxicated. At the gas station, Craven got into an argument with some other customers, and, frightened, Craven and Williams hurriedly left the gas station, squealing the van’s tires as they left. The squealing tires attracted the attention of Minneapolis Police Officer Christopher Gaiters. Gaiters turned on his police car lights and observed the minivan running a red light and forcing another vehicle off the road as it entered the I-94 entrance ramp. Gaiters then activated his siren and began to pursue the minivan. Gaiters assessed the minivan’s speed at approximately 55 miles per hour — the speed limit in good driving conditions.

As 1-94 enters the Lowry Hill tunnel, it curves and the recommended speed falls to 85 miles per hour. As the minivan entered this tunnel, Craven braked, but lost control of his vehicle and crashed into the tunnel wall. The initial crash was forceful enough to shatter the passenger door window and throw Williams into the door and then into the driver’s seat. The front right wheel crumpled under the vehicle, rendering the van inoperable and causing it to pull to the right. Less than a second after hitting the wall, the minivan exited the tunnel, lurched to the right, and plowed into two vehicles parked on the shoulder immediately outside of the tunnel, killing two women who had stopped there to change a flat tire.

Craven was charged with two counts of third-degree murder under Minn.Stat. § 609.195(a) (1998) and two counts of fleeing a peace officer in a motor vehicle causing death (fleeing causing death) under Minn.Stat. § 609.487, subd. 4 (1998). More than a year later, the state amended its complaint, dismissing the two counts of fleeing causing death and adding two counts of second-degree (felony) murder under Minn.Stat. § 609.19, subd. 2(1) (1998), with fleeing a peace officer in a motor vehicle (fleeing) under Minn.Stat. § 609.487, subd. 3, as the predicate felonies. Craven’s motion to dismiss the felony-murder counts was denied. Later, the defense moved to dismiss because of selective prosecution and that motion was also denied. Craven then waived his right to a jury trial. During the court trial, the district court granted Craven’s motion for acquittal on the third-degree murder counts. At the end of trial, the court found Craven guilty of two counts of second-degree felony-murder. Craven was sentenced to 180 months in prison, and this appeal followed.

ISSUE

May a defendant’s actions be charged and prosecuted as felony-murder when fleeing a peace officer in a motor vehicle is the predicate felony?

ANALYSIS

Craven argues that the district court erred by not dismissing the felony-murder charges. Craven only appeals from the district court’s legal determinations, which are reviewed de novo. State v. Murphy, 545 N.W.2d 909, 914 (Minn.1996).

Craven argues that the district court erred by failing to dismiss each felony-murder charge because the more specific charge of fleeing causing death applies. Generally speaking, the same set of facts may constitute more than one offense if the statutes so provide. State v. Bolsinger, 221 Minn. 154, 165, 21 N.W.2d 480, 488 (1946). A defendant may then be charged “under whichever law or statute [the prosecutor] sees fit,” id. (citation omitted), so long as the prosecutor does not discriminate against a particular class of defendants. State v. Chryst, 320 N.W.2d 721, 722 (Minn.1982). But when two criminal statutes, one general and one specific, conflict because they have the same elements but differing penalties, the more specific statute governs over the more general statute, unless the legislature manifestly intends for the general statute to control. State v. Kalvig, 296 Minn. 395, 398, 209 N.W.2d 678, 680 (1973); State v. Lewandowski, 443 N.W.2d 551, 553 (Minn.App.1989); State v. Williams, 396 N.W.2d 840, 843-44 (Minn.App.1986); see generally Minn.Stat. § 645.26, subd. 1 (2000) (stating general rule that specific provisions govern over conflicting general provisions).

Here, the crime of felony-murder with fleeing as the predicate felony has the same elements as fleeing causing death. Both crimes require proof that a defendant (1) fled from a police officer (2) in a motor vehicle (3) causing a death. Compare Minn.Stat. § 609.19, subd. 2(1) (1998) (felony-murder), .487, subd. 3 (1998) (fleeing), with Minn.Stat. § 609.487, subd. 4 (1998) (fleeing causing death).

The state argues that the statutes indicate an intent that felony-murder controls in this situation. Where two statutes conflict, the general controls the specific only if the legislature indicates the manifest intent that the general statute should control. Lewandowski, 443 N.W.2d at 553. In State v. Eaton, the supreme held that “theft by swindle” could be an appropriate charge, despite the more specific crime of “securities fraud,” because the legislature clearly expressed its intent to allow prosecutions for theft by swindle. 292 N.W.2d 260, 268 (Minn.1980). In Eaton, the manifest intent was demonstrated by the language of the securities-fraud statute, which stated:

nothing in [the securities-fraud statute] limits the power of the state to punish any person for any conduct which constitutes a crime under any other statute.

Id. at 268 (quoting Minn.Stat. § 80A.22, subd. 3 (1978)).

The fleeing causing death statute contains a proviso that indicates that the statute only applies where the death does not constitute murder or manslaughter. Minn.Stat. § 609.487, subd. 4. This language states a broad preference for the more general provisions of the criminal code defining murder or manslaughter. But it does not manifest an intent that the general felony-murder statute should prevail over the more specific fleeing causing death statute.

If the flight, as was charged in this case, was an act “eminently dangerous to others and evincing a depraved mind, without regard for human life,” it would constitute third-degree murder. Minn.Stat. § 609.195(a) (2000). If the act involved culpable negligence, it might constitute second-degree manslaughter. See Minn. Stat. § 609.205(1) (2000). If the act involved the use of a vehicle as a dangerous weapon, it would constitute felony-murder. See Minn.Stat. § 609.222 (2000) (felony crime of assault with a dangerous weapon). But in these situations, the more general statutes would include additional elements: conduct indicating a depraved mind for third-degree murder; culpable negligence for second-degree manslaughter; and assault with a dangerous weapon for second-degree murder.

Because the count charging Craven with felony-murder relies on fleeing a peace officer in a motor vehicle as the predicate felony, it does not require proof of any element not already required to prove fleeing a peace officer in a motor vehicle causing death. Moreover, the legislature, by enacting Minn.Stat. § 609.487, subd. 4(a) and creating the aggravated offense of fleeing causing death, has already used the element of death to aggravate the offense. There is no legislative intent permitting aggravation of the offense under the felony-murder statute using the same element of causing death.

The felony-murder statute in Minnesota incorporates the common law felony-murder rule under which a felon was made criminally liable for a death caused in the course of the commission of the felony. See State v. Branson, 487 N.W.2d 880, 881 (Minn.1992). The rule imputed malice where there was no specific intent to kill. Id. (citation omitted). The Branson court noted that the rule has been criticized for “its mechanical operation” and as being unfair. Id. at 882. Accordingly, the court has judicially limited the application of the felony-murder statute even in the absence of limiting language in the statute. See State v. Cole, 542 N.W.2d 43, 52-53 (Minn.1996). Even assuming the legislature intended to allow a person charged with fleeing police and causing a death to be charged with felony-murder, the statute cannot be applied that broadly.

It is well recognized that not every felony can serve as the predicate felony for a felony-murder charge. See id. (noting that only crimes involving special danger to human life may serve as the predicate felony). For example, the crime of manslaughter, although a felony, also requires a death. It cannot serve as the predicate felony for felony-murder without obliterating manslaughter as a separate offense. 2 Wayne R. LaFave & Austin W. Scott, Jr., Substantive Criminal Law § 7.5(g)(1) (1986). Similarly, offenders like Craven cannot be charged with felony-murder without extinguishing the separate offense of fleeing causing death. That is because the prosecution can obtain a more severe sentence for felony-murder without having to prove any additional element. Compare Minn.Stat. § 609.487, subd. 4(a) (providing maximum sentence of ten years for fleeing causing death); Minn. Sent. Guidelines V (classifying fleeing causing death as severity level 7 offense); with Minn.Stat. § 609.19, subd. 2(1) (providing 40-year maximum sentence for second-degree felony-murder); Minn. Sent. Guidelines V (classifying second-degree felony-murder as severity level 9 offense).

The felony-murder statute is not merely a more general statute under the Kalvig analysis resolving conflicts between general and specific statutes. It is a specialized statute in another sense; it embodies a common law doctrine and exists for the specific purpose of imposing criminal liability for certain unintended deaths. Where a death is already an element of an aggravated offense, as it is here under Minn. Stat. § 609.487, subd. 4, the felony-murder statute serves no purpose other than to ratchet up the permissible sentence. Even if, under the Kalvig analysis, the legislature manifested an intent, to permit this result, the felony-murder doctrine as it has been judicially construed cannot be stretched so far.

There is no support for the state’s argument that Kalvig has been “confined to its facts.” See, e.g. Lewandowski 443 N.W.2d at 553, 555 (reversing conviction for “escape” because “release, failure to appear” was more specific). The state’s argument that the statutes do not conflict under Kalvig because the predicate felony for felony-murder must involve a “special danger” to human life, lacks merit. See State v. Nunn, 297 N.W.2d 752, 754 (Minn.1980) (holding predicate felony must involve “special danger” to human life); State v. Aarsvold, 376 N.W.2d 518, 522 (Minn.App.1985), review denied (Minn. Dec. 30, 1985). The “special danger” requirement is not an element for the jury’s determination, but is a preliminary matter for the court to determine. See, e.g., State v. Cole, 542 N.W.2d at 52-53. Moreover, in making this determination the court must consider the facts of the particular case as well as the elements of the predicate felony in the abstract. Id. at 53. Other than in a tortured hypothetical positing a “slow chase,” the state points to no situation where felony murder could not be charged against a fleeing suspect who has caused a death. The conflict between the statutes, even taking the judicially imposed limitation on the felony-murder statute, is evident. Flight from a police officer in a motor vehicle is inherently dangerous and easily fits within the felony-murder doctrine. Allowing a felony-murder charge would swallow up the more specific charge of fleeing causing death.

Because the application of the felony-murder statute is inappropriate where fleeing causing death is a more specific crime and the legislature has expressed no intent that felony-murder should control, it is not necessary to reach Craven’s arguments regarding due process violations. As the felony-murder charge is inappropriate, no discussion about fleeing causing death as a lesser charge is necessary.

DECISION

The district court erred in failing to dismiss felony-murder charges with fleeing a peace officer as the predicate felonies because the charges violate the rule that the more specific crime prevails over a more general crime with the same elements, and also constitute an unwarranted extension of the felony-murder doctrine.

Reversed.

      . The results of a later test indicated that Craven had a blood-alcohol level of 0.204, which is more than twice the legal limit.

      . When this statute was enacted in 1981, fleeing was only a gross misdemeanor and therefore not subject to the felony-murder rule. Minn.Stat. 609.487, subds. 3, 4 (1982).


author: CRIPPEN, Judge

text:
    David E. MOLLICO, Respondent, v. Evelyn L. MOLLICO, Respondent, Scott Lucia, Respondent-Appellant, Peggy A. Nelson, f/k/a Peggy A. Scheall, et al., Defendants, Phyllis R. Bazso, a/k/a Phyllis L. Bazso, Respondent, and Evelyn Mollico, third-party plaintiff, Respondent, v. Richard D. Kolu, third-party defendant, Appellant.
    Nos. C6-00-1870, C2-00-1963.
    Court of Appeals of Minnesota.
    June 19, 2001.

      Harold A. Frederick, Joseph M. Fischer, Fryberger, Buchanan, Smith & Frederick, P.A., Duluth, MN, (for respondent David Mollico).
    Larry Stauber, Jr., Stauber & Lien, Duluth, MN, (for respondent Evelyn Mollico).
    Richard A. Nelson, Duluth, MN, (for respondent Lucia).
    Jeffrey C. Paulson, Hammargren, Meyer & Paulson, P.A., Minneapolis, MN, (for appellant Lucia).
    Phyllis R. Bazso, El Cagón, CA, (pro se respondent).
    Michael E. Orman, Orman & Nord Law Offices, Duluth, MN, (for third-party plain-tiffirespondent Evelyn Mollico).
    John D. Kelly, Robin C. Merritt, Hanft Fride, P.A., Duluth, MN, (for appellant Kolu).
    Considered and decided by HANSON, Presiding Judge, TOUSSAINT, Chief Judge, and CRIPPEN, Judge.
   OPINION

CRIPPEN, Judge

Appellants Richard Kolu and Scott Lucia challenge the trial court’s summary judgment ruling that a written delivery instruction, attached to a quitclaim deed executed by owners Evelyn Mollico and her now-deceased husband, is unambiguous as a matter of law and served to immediately convey the owners’ interest in their property. More particularly, appellants contend that the trial court erred by refusing to admit extrinsic evidence to show that the owners intended to retain the power to revoke the delivery. Because the parol evidence rule compels the trial court’s decision, we affirm.

FACTS

Respondent David Mollico asserts an undivided one-third fee interest in a 120-acre St. Louis County site based upon a quitclaim deed and a written delivery instruction executed in 1993 by Evelyn Mollico and her husband, Roxie Mollico. Appellant Scott Lucia also asserts a fee interest in the parcel, purportedly conveyed by a warranty deed executed in 1998 by Evelyn.

In early 1993, Evelyn and Roxie retained the estate-planning services of appellant Richard Kolu, an attorney. Kolu prepared a quitclaim deed with a written delivery declaration. The quitclaim deed purported to convey the Mollicos’ fee interests in the parcel to grantees David Mollico and his sisters, Peggy Scheall and Phyllis Bazso, subject to life-estate interests retained by the elder Mollicos. Evelyn and Roxie signed the deed and the declaration and gave the documents to Kolu, who retained the original copies. The declaration attached to the deed states in full:

The attached instrument is hereby unconditionally delivered to you as agent for the Grantees to be filed of record at such time as you deem appropriate, including your Law Office being notified we have both died.

Evelyn sent copies of the documents to the grantees.

Roxie died two years later. In 1998, Evelyn decided to sell the parcel and asked Kolu to cancel the 1993 transaction, which he presumably attempted to do. Evelyn listed the property for sale, accepted Lucia’s purchase offer, and executed a purchase agreement with Lucia.

David opposed the sale of the property to Lucia. He sent a letter to Lucia and Kolu stating that Evelyn had conveyed her fee interest in the 1993 deed and that any interest received from her would be a life-estate interest. In spite of respondent’s adverse claim against the disputed parcel, Evelyn executed and delivered a warranty deed to Lucia, which was recorded the next day.

David subsequently filed a lawsuit against Evelyn, Lucia, Peggy, and Phyllis, seeking a declaratory judgment that he and his sisters are the fee owners of the parcel. Lucia cross-claimed against Evelyn to require her to defend the title ostensibly conveyed by the warranty deed. Kolu was joined as a third-party defendant after Evelyn brought a separate malpractice claim against him.

The trial court granted David’s motion for partial summary judgment, concluding that the written delivery declaration is unambiguous as a matter of law and that, as a result, extrinsic evidence of the Mollicos’ intent was inadmissible. The court found that the declaration served to immediately effectuate the deed’s conveyance of the grantors’ interest to their three children. Kolu and Lucia filed separate notices of appeal from the judgment. This court consolidated the appeals.

ISSUE

Did the trial court err in its application of the parol evidence rule?

ANALYSIS

On appeal from summary judgment, this court asks whether there are any genuine issues of material fact and whether the trial court erred in its application of the law. State by Cooper v. French, 460 N.W.2d 2, 4 (Minn.1990). This court views “the evidence in the light most favorable to the party against whom judgment was granted.” Fabio v. Bellomo, 504 N.W.2d 758, 761 (Minn.1993) (citation omitted).

The application of the parol evidence rule is a question of law subject to de novo review. See Anchor Cas. Co. v. Bird Island Produce, Inc., 249 Minn. 137, 145, 82 N.W.2d 48, 54 (1957) (stating the parol evidence rule is a matter of substantive law, not a rule of evidence). The rule generally prohibits the admission of extrinsic evidence to alter or contradict the terms of a written instrument. Hruska v. Chandler Assocs., Inc., 372 N.W.2d 709, 713 (Minn.1985).

Claiming an exception to the rule, appellants contend that parol evidence is admissible to show that Evelyn and Roxie intended to retain the right to revoke the delivery of the 1993 quitclaim deed.

1. Ambiguity

The delivery of a deed is effective if the grantor manifests a clear intention “to part presently and unconditionally with all control” over the deed. Barnard v. Thurston, 86 Minn. 343, 347, 90 N.W. 574, 576 (1902). When the terms of a written instrument are ambiguous, parol evidence is admissible. Nord v. Herreid, 305 N.W.2d 337, 340 (Minn.1981). “Where * * * the intent of the parties is totally ascertainable from the writing, construction is for the court.” Hunt v. IBM Mid Am. Employees Fed. Credit Union, 384 N.W.2d 853, 856 (Minn.1986) (citation omitted).

Appellants claim that the written delivery declaration did not manifest the clear intention necessary to effectuate delivery of the quitclaim deed because the instruction is ambiguous as to the Mollicos’ intent. A wilting is ambiguous if, judged by its language alone and without resort to extrinsic evidence, it is reasonably susceptible to more than one meaning. Art Goebel, Inc. v. North Suburban Agencies, Inc., 567 N.W.2d 511, 515 (Minn.1997). The determination of whether a written instrument is ambiguous is a question of law subject to de novo review. Id.

Appellants contend that this instruction is ambiguous for several reasons. First, they argue that “unconditionally delivered” could be read to mean that the Mollicos physically deposited the deed with Kolu and provided him with unconditional authority to carry out the instructions so that the phrase does not refer to the delivery of the deed but instead establishes the boundaries of Kolu’s discretion to act. Second, they claim that “filed of record” could refer to the delivery of the deed, not to its recording. Finally, appellants suggest that the “including” clause (permitting recording when Kolu’s office was notified that both grantors had died) could be read to limit the conditions under which Kolu could deliver the deed, showing that delivery was not intended to be immediate. There is no merit in these assertions. The instruction is clear and unambiguous, and to read its language as appellants urge would distort its plain meaning.

The instruction means precisely what it states: the delivery was declared to a person named “as agent for the Grantees,” was expressly said to be “unconditional,” and the owners stated the agent’s authority to record the deed at any time he deemed appropriate. The deed was not merely placed or deposited, as appellants would have it, but was “delivered” to an agent of the grantees. The delivery was labeled as unconditional, not dependent upon filing. The document stated an occasion for filing that is included, but it suggests as well that other such occasions are unstated and it precludes none of them. Nothing in the document states or implies that the grantors retained some right to revoke or recall the deed. We conclude, as did the trial court, that the instruction unambiguously manifested the grantors’ intention to part presently and unconditionally with all control over the 1993 quitclaim deed.

Appellants argue that this interpretation renders the instruction superfluous, doing nothing that the Mollicos could not have done by simply recording the deed or delivering it to the grantees. But the Mollicos did not deliver the deed to the grantees; therefore, the instruction serves to clarify their intent. Moreover, the instrument satisfies the demands of the law for a surrender of title to the grantees, whether or not the grantors harbored some contrary expectation. A delivery accompanied by a written declaration that the delivery is unconditional establishes without ambiguity that the grantors intended to deliver their deed. Physical delivery or even the recording of the deed may not constitute a conveyance, but the transaction occurs when the grantors evince an intention, presently and unconditionally, to part with their ownership. See Slawik v. Loseth, 207 Minn. 137, 139, 290 N.W. 228, 229 (1940) (stating grantor must evince intent to convey title); Exsted v. Exsted, 202 Minn. 521, 525, 279 N.W. 554, 558 (1938) (same). The grantors accomplished their declared aim to pass title to their children, perhaps to circumvent the need for probate court proceedings in the event of their deaths. Appellants have provided no authority for the proposition that the grantors could achieve this result and maintain at the same time their ongoing privileges of ownership.

2. Subsequent conduct

Appellants contend that evidence of the Mollicos’ conduct after the execution of the deed and instructions is admissible under the subsequent-conduct exception to the parol evidence rule. Par-ol evidence is admissible to show a subsequent modification of an original contract. Nord, 305 N.W.2d at 339-40; see also In re Estate of Giguere, 366 N.W.2d 345, 347 (Minn.App.1985) (allowing parol evidence to show a new agreement between the parties that delayed enforcement of a promissory note by giving time extension for payment). In this case, however, appellants do not wish to offer parol evidence to prove a subsequent modification, but to contradict the unambiguous terms of the original writing. Thus, the evidence is inadmissible.

3. Condition precedent

Appellants argue that parol evidence is admissible to show that the Molli-cos intended delivery of the quitclaim deed to occur only upon the condition of their deaths or other circumstances. Even when a written instrument is unconditional on its face, parol evidence is admissible to show that it is subject to a condition precedent. Nord, 305 N.W.2d at 339; Jansen v. Herman, 304 Minn. 572, 575, 230 N.W.2d 460, 463 (1975); Craigmile v. Sorenson, 239 Minn. 383, 394, 58 N.W.2d 865, 871 (1953).

In each of these cases, parol evidence was admissible respecting a document that declared an unconditional obligation but was silent as to a matter that was later the subject of a disputed claim; that is, that the agreement was subject to an oral condition precedent. But none of these cases suggest that parol evidence is admissible to contradict that which is stated in an agreement, such as in this instance, where conveyance was completed through the unconditional delivery of a deed. In Nord, for example, the Minnesota Supreme Court allowed parol evidence on the issue of whether a lessee was responsible for obtaining an occupancy permit, a point upon which the lease was silent. 305 N.W.2d at 339. Similarly, the court in Jansen permitted parol evidence when a contract did not state whether a broker’s commission was contingent upon the closing of a real estate transaction. 304 Minn. at 575-76, 230 N.W.2d at 463-64. Likewise in Craigmile, the supreme court affirmed the trial court’s consideration of oral testimony regarding negotiations before the parties executed a contract for deed where the contract was silent on whether a down payment was a condition precedent to its formation. 239 Minn. at 393-96, 58 N.W.2d at 871-72.

Unlike the instruments in Nord, Jansen, and Craigmile, the instrument here is not silent about the alleged condition precedent. The document addresses the Molli-cos’ deaths and states that notification of death is but one of the appropriate times when the agent, in his discretion, might elect to record the already-delivered deed. The issue in this case is whether the deed was intentionally delivered. Because the instruction expressly addresses that issue and unambiguously states that delivery was without any conditions, there is no room for the admission of parol evidence. See City of St. Paul v. Dahlby, 266 Minn. 304, 314, 123 N.W.2d 586, 592 (1963) (stating parol evidence is not admissible to show that a written instrument was executed with an understanding that, it was not to be binding according to its terms).

DECISION

Because no exceptions to the parol evidence rule are applicable in this case, the trial court properly refused to admit oral evidence of the Mollicos’ intention to retain the right to revoke the delivery of the 1993 quitclaim deed.

Affirmed.

      . Peggy Scheall has since changed her name to Peggy Nelson.


author: SCHUMACHER, Judge.

text:
    Gloria L. KOLTON, Appellant, v. COUNTY OF ANOKA, defendant and third-party plaintiff, Respondent, v. Allan T. Roth, individually and d/b/a A.T. Group, Sun Life Assurance Company of Canada, Respondents.
    No. C1-00-2179.
    Court of Appeals of Minnesota.
    June 26, 2001.

      Wayne J. Rice, the Law Office of Wayne J. Rice, P.A., Minneapolis, for appellant.
    Robert M.A. Johnson, Anoka County Attorney, Robert D. Goodell, Assistant County Attorney, Anoka, for respondent Anoka County.
    Frederick E. Finch, Bassford, Lockhart, Truesdell & Briggs, P.A., Minneapolis, for respondent Roth.
    James F. Roegge, Meagher & Geer, P.L.L.P., Minneapolis; and Mark E. Schmidtke, Hoeppner, Wagner & Evans, L.L.P., Valparaiso, IN, for respondent Sun Life.
    Considered and decided by STONEBURNER, P.J., SCHUMACHER and PORITSKY, JJ.

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

   OPINION

SCHUMACHER, Judge.

Appellant Gloria L. Kolton challenges adverse summary judgment, arguing that the district court erred in ruling she did not establish Minnesota Human Rights Act (MHRA) and equal protection claims as a matter of law. We affirm summary judgment on equal protection but reverse judgment on her statutory claim.

FACTS

Respondent County of Anoka employed appellant as an income maintenance specialist from December 5, 1990 until October 21, 1994, when she resigned due to incapacitating mental illness. Appellant began receiving long term disability (LTD) income through Anoka County in April 1995. The Anoka County LTD insurance policy through respondent Sun Life Assurance Company of Canada in effect in 1995 contained a limitation which classified beneficiaries with mental disabilities for reduced benefits. While the plan provided coverage until retirement age for the physically disabled, for a mental disability the plan provided that benefits after the first 24 months would only be payable if the employee was confined in a hospital or institution licensed to provide psychiatric treatment. Because appellant was not institutionalized in April 1997, her LTD benefits discontinued effective April 19, 1997.

Appellant filed a claim alleging discrimination based on disability with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC). The EEOC issued a determination that Anoka County had violated appellant’s rights under Title I of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) because the county did not offer appellant a comparable LTD plan as that for physically disabled employees. Anoka County has since changed their LTD policy to provide identical coverage for all disabled.

Appellant filed this lawsuit, alleging that Anoka County’s LTD policy violated her constitutional right to equal protection and discriminated against her because of her disability in violation of the ADA and the MHRA. Anoka County, respondent Allan T. Roth, individually and d/b/a A.T. Group, and Sun Life brought a motion to dismiss, or in the alternative, for summary judgment.

After a hearing, the district court granted summary judgment. Regarding the ADA claim, the district court ruled that appellant did not have standing under the ADA because she is not a qualified individual with a disability. Regarding the MHRA claim, the court ruled that appellant was unable to establish that the county discriminated against her because of her disability since all employees were offered the same policy with the same limitations regardless of their physical or mental health. As to equal protection, the court ruled that respondents satisfied the rational basis test because, for the county to consider cost and economic factors when purchasing disability insurance policies, it serves a legitimate purpose. On appeal, appellant challenges the MHRA and equal protection rulings.

ISSUES

1. Did the district court err in granting summary judgment on the MHRA claim?

2. Did the district court err in granting summary judgment on the equal protection claim?

ANALYSIS

On appeal from summary judgment, this court determines whether there are any genuine issues of material fact and whether the trial court erred in its application of the law. State by Cooper v. French, 460 N.W.2d 2, 4 (Minn.1990). This court must view the evidence “in the light most favorable to the party against whom judgment was granted.” Fabio v. Bellomo, 504 N.W.2d 758, 761 (Minn.1993) (citation omitted). Statutory construction is a question of law that we review de novo. Brookfield Trade Ctr., Inc. v. County of Ramsey, 584 N.W.2d 890, 393 (Minn.1998). At the appellate oral argument, counsel for the parties agreed that there were no factual disputes and that this court should decide the issues presented as a matter of law.

1. Appellant argues that the district court erred in granting adverse summary judgment on her MHRA claim. Under the MHRA, it is an unfair employment practice for an employer to discriminate with respect to employment privileges because of disability. Minn.Stat. § 363.03, subd. 1(2) (2000). The court here ruled that appellant was not able to establish that the county discriminated against her because of her disability since all employees are offered the same policy with the same limitations regardless of their physical or mental health.

Before reaching the merits, the parties argue whether appellant has standing to bring a MHRA claim. The MHRA prohibits employment discrimination except when based on a “bona fide occupational qualification.” Minn.Stat. § 363.03, subd. 1. Respondents suggest that appellant does not have standing because she is unable to work. But while the ability to perform the essential functions of a position is a necessary prerequisite for being hired or retaining a position, it does not follow that this ability is necessary to seek relief for discrimination unrelated to holding a job. Indeed, if appellant were able to work she would not likely have qualified for disability benefits. We are satisfied that appellant has standing to bring her MHRA claim.

Respondents urge this court to follow federal ADA jurisprudence and rule that, where all employees are offered the same policy with the same limitations regardless of their physical or mental health, there is no discrimination because of disability under the MHRA. This is the rule that federal ADA decisions generally follow in health insurance cases. See, e.g., Krauel v. Iowa Methodist Med. Ctr., 95 F.3d 674, 678 (8th Cir.1996) (“Insurance distinctions that apply equally to all insured employees, that is, to individuals with disabilities and to those who are not disabled, do not discriminate on the basis of disability.”).

In 1993, an EEOC Guidance laid out the rule that with regard to health insurance plans there may be no ADA violation so long as all employees are offered the same policy. The Guidance stated:

It is important to note that not all health-related plan distinctions discriminate on the basis of disability. Insurance distinctions that are not based on disability, and that are applied equally to all insured employees, do not discriminate on the basis of disability and so do not violate the ADA.
For example, a feature of some employer provided health insurance plans is a distinction between the benefits provided for the treatment of physical conditions on the one hand, and the benefits provided for the treatment of “mental/nervous” conditions on the other. Typically, a lower level of benefits is provided for the treatment of mental/nervous conditions than is provided for the treatment of physical conditions. Similarly, some health insurance plans provide fewer benefits for “eye care” than for other physical conditions. Such broad distinctions, which apply to the treatment of a multitude of dissimilar conditions and which constrain individuals both with and without disabilities, are not distinctions based on disability. Consequently, although such distinctions may have a greater impact on certain individuals with disabilities, they do not intentionally discriminate on the basis of disability and do not violate the ADA.

EEOC Guidance at 6-7 (footnotes omitted), at http://www.eeoc.gov/docs/guidance.pdf.

But the 1993 Guidance specifically declined to extend this rule to fringe benefits such as long-term disability insurance:

The purpose of this interim guidance is to assist Commission investigators in analyzing ADA charges which allege that a disability-based distinction in the terms or provisions of an employer provided health insurance plan violates the ADA. This interim guidance does not address the application of the ADA to other issues arising in the context of employer provided health insurance. Nor does it address the application of the ADA to other types of “fringe benefits,” such as employer provided pension plans, life insurance, and disability insurance.

EEOC Guidance at 1. Indeed, the EEOC has taken the position that long-term disability insurance coverage that targets certain disabilities violates the ADA. See, e.g., EEOC v. Aramark Corp., 208 F.3d 266 (D.C.Cir.2000); EEOC v. Staten Island Sav. Bank, 207 F.3d 144 (2d Cir.2000); EEOC v. CNA Ins. Cos., 96 F.3d 1039 (7th Cir.1996).

Nonetheless, federal courts have extended the rule allowing disability-based distinctions in employer-provided health insurance plans into cases of long-term disability insurance. See, e.g., Weyer v. Twentieth Century Fox Film Corp., 198 F.3d 1104, 1116 (9th Cir.2000) (rejecting argument that employers may not offer disability insurance policy giving different levels of benefits to those with different types of disabilities); Lewis v. Kmart Corp., 180 F.3d 166, 171-72 (4th Cir.1999) (upholding LTD policy cutting off mental disability benefits after 24 months). But see Ford v. Schering-Plough Corp., 145 F.3d 601, 615 (3d Cir.1998) (Aito, J. concurring) (“such distinctions * * * constitute discrimination in the most basic sense of the word”).

Appellant argues that federal interpretation of the ADA does not control our interpretation of the MHRA. Indeed, although we may look to federal cases for guidance in interpreting the MHRA, we are free to decline to follow the federal rule. See Cummings v. Koehnen, 568 N.W.2d 418, 422 n. 5 (Minn.1997) (rejecting federal rule that proof of disparate impact on one gender is necessary element of sexual harassment claim). In a case that is particularly instructive to the issue here, our supreme court went beyond the federal law at the time and ruled that excluding only pregnancy-related disabilities from an otherwise comprehensive income maintenance plan was “per se sex discrimination” within the meaning of the MHRA. Minnesota Mining & Mfg. Co. v. State, 289 N.W.2d 396, 397 (Minn.1979).

In Minnesota Mining, the employer specifically excluded absences due to pregnancy-related disabilities from monetary compensation under its comprehensive income maintenance plan. 289 N.W.2d at 398. An employee alleged sex discrimination in violation of the MHRA. Id. at 397-98. The employer argued that it was not discriminating on the basis of sex when it excluded pregnancy-related absences as the policy applied equally to men and women. Id. at 398. In interpreting Title VII, the United States Supreme Court had recently held that an exclusion of pregnancy from a disability-benefits plan providing general coverage was not sex-based discrimination because the same facially nondiscriminatory plan covers both men and women. General Elec. Co. v. Gilbert, 429 U.S. 125, 138, 97 S.Ct. 401, 409, 50 L.Ed.2d 343 (1976). Nonetheless, our supreme court held that excluding only pregnancy-related disabilities from an otherwise comprehensive income maintenance plan is per se sex discrimination in violation of the MHRA. Minnesota Mining, 289 N.W.2d at 400.

■ Respondents contend that a long-term disability policy that specifically excludes the mentally disabled from full coverage is not disability-based discrimination because the same plan with the same limitations is offered to all employees regardless of their physical or mental health. This argument is similar to the Gilbert rule that was rejected in Minnesota Mining. In Minnesota Mining, the court noted that the exclusion of pregnancy-related disabilities seemed to clearly reflect stereotypes of traditional sexual roles. 289 N.W.2d at 400. Similarly, the exclusion here seems to reflect the traditional stereotypes of mental illness. When the county solicited bids for LTD coverage in 1994, all submitted bids limited benefits for disability claims based on mental illness, which was apparently standard in the industry at that time.

Minnesota courts have “consistently held that the remedial nature of the Minnesota Human Rights Act requires liberal construction of its terms.” Cybyske v. Independent Sch. Dist. No. 196, 347 N.W.2d 256, 264 (Minn.1984). Minnesota has a clear public policy prohibiting discrimination against the disabled in insurance coverage. See Minn.Stat. § 72A.20, subd. 8(a) (2000) (unfair and deceptive act for insurance company to discriminate on basis of disability in terms and conditions of life insurance unless differences are based on actuarial data). The differential treatment in this case appears to reflect the traditional insurance industry practice of excluding the mentally disabled from full long-term disability coverage.

We hold that differences in long-term disability benefits based merely on whether an employee is physically or mentally disabled is discrimination in violation of the MHRA. Further, if we were to affirm the district court, we question whether such a distinction could remain tenable. For example, consider whether conditions such as Alzheimer’s disease or schizophrenia are mental or physical disabilities, and the potential pitfalls inherent in such a dichotomy become apparent.

2. Appellant argues that the district court erred in granting adverse summary judgment on her equal protection claim. Both the federal and state equal protection clauses mandate that the state treat similarly situated individuals alike and deem invidious discrimination constitutionally offensive. Scott v. Minneapolis Police Relief Ass’n, Inc., 615 N.W.2d 66, 74 (Minn.2000). Unless an equal protection challenge “involves a suspect classification or a fundamental right, we review the challenge under a rational basis standard under both the state and federal constitutions.” Id. Appellant argues that the disabled should be considered a quasi-suspect class accorded a heightened standard for review, but we can find no precedent for doing so. Cf. In re Ultraflex Enterprises’ Appeal from, Decertification in Minn. Small Bus. Procurement Program, 497 N.W.2d 641, 644 (Minn.App.1993) (rational basis test applied to equal protection disability challenge).

Under the rational basis test, the challenged classification is presumed valid and will be sustained if the classification is reasonably related to a legitimate state interest. Scott, 615 N.W.2d at 74. Under the test, the rationale supporting the classification need not have been articulated at any time by the governing decision-maker. Nordlinger v. Hahn, 505 U.S. 1, 15, 112 S.Ct. 2326, 2334, 120 L.Ed.2d 1 (1992). Here, the district court stated that providing shorter-term. LTD benefits for mentally disabled certainly serves the county’s legitimate purpose of considering cost factors. While there are preferable nondiscriminatory ways to decrease costs, it appears nonetheless debatable whether singling out mentally disabled for reduced coverage would reasonably decrease the cost of disability insurance. See Essling v. Markman, 335 N.W.2d 237, 240 (Minn.1983) (stating party challenging constitutionality of statute cannot prevail under rational basis test so long as the question is at least debatable).

DECISION

We affirm summary judgment on the equal protection claim. Differences in long-term disability benefits based merely on whether an employee is physically or mentally disabled is discrimination in violation of the MHRA. Accordingly, we reverse summary judgment on appellant’s MHRA claim, for which judgment should be entered in favor of appellant on uncontested facts as a matter of law.

Affirmed in part and reversed in part.


author: STONEBURNER, Judge

text:
    Chuck NIEWIND, d/b/a C & N Construction, a sole proprietorship, Appellant, v. Keith L. CARLSON, et al., Co-trustees of the Jane Lash Carlson Trust u/a May 3, 1989, Respondents, Rapid Trust, et al., Third-Party Defendants.
    No. C0-00-1881.
    Court of Appeals of Minnesota.
    June 26, 2001.

      Paul D. Cerkvenick, Patrick J. Roche, Jr., Trenti Law Firm, Virginia, MN, (for appellant).
    Mark G. Ohnstad, Thomsen & Nybeck, P.A., Edina, MN, (for respondents).
    Considered and decided by CRIPPEN, Presiding Judge, KLAPHAKE, Judge, and STONEBURNER, Judge.
   OPINION

STONEBURNER, Judge

Chuck Niewind, d/b/a C & N Construction (Niewind), appeals from the denial of his motion for a new trial or, in the alternative, amended findings of fact on the issue of attorney fees awarded to him in this mechanic’s lien action. By notice of review, respondents Keith L. and Jane Lash Carlson, co-trustees of the Jane Lash Carlson Trust, (Carlsons) appeal from the denial of their motion for summary judgment. Because we conclude that Nie-wind’s prelien notice failed to comply with the requirements of Minn.Stat. § 514.011, subd. 1 (2000), we reverse.

FACTS

Niewind contracted with the Carlsons to construct a home on lakeshore property for $291,725. The parties do not dispute that Niewind provided work on extras not covered in the original bid, for which he claimed an additional $24,345.45 was due. The Carlsons admitted that $21,942.66 was due for the extras but refused to pay anything, claiming that they were entitled to damages of over $100,000 for construction defects caused by Niewind. Niewind brought an action to foreclose a mechanic’s lien. The Carlsons answered, alleging Niewind had not perfected a lien because the prelien notice printed on the form Nie-wind used was defective, and counterclaimed, asserting causes of action based on breach of contract and breach of warranty, among others.

The Carlsons moved for summary judgment on the mechanic’s lien claim on the ground that Niewind’s prelien notice was not in bold type as required by statute, defeating the lien. See MinmStat. § 514.011, subd. 1 (2000). The district court denied summary judgment, finding that the prelien notice was prominently displayed and that the Carlsons did not claim prejudice due to the lack of bold print.

Other suppliers of building materials and services were brought into the litigation. After a 10-day trial, the district court granted a directed verdict in favor of Niewind, dismissing all of the Carlsons’ claims except those based on breach of contract and warranty. The jury determined that (1) Niewind was entitled to $24,284.57 for the extras; (2) Niewind did not breach the contract with the Carlsons; (3) although the Carlsons’ home had construction defects, Niewind was not their direct cause; and (4) the Carlsons had no damages.

Niewind then sought $68,710.68 in attorney fees and an award of costs and disbursements. The district court awarded Niewind his costs and disbursements, but only $10,000 for attorney fees. Niewind appeals from the district court’s denial of his motions for a new trial and amended findings of fact on the issue of attorney fees. By notice of review, the Carlsons challenge the denial of their motion for summary judgment.

ISSUES

1. Does a contractor’s failure to comply with the statutory requirement that a printed prelien notice be in bold type defeat the lien?

2. Did the district court abuse its discretion by reducing Niewind’s claimed attorney fees to $10,000?

ANALYSIS

1. Prelien Notice Requirement

The Carlsons challenge the district court’s denial of their motion for summary judgment, in which they requested dismissal of Niewind’s mechanic’s lien action because it failed to strictly comply with the prelien notice requirements of Minn.Stat. § 514.011, subd. 1 (2000). The parties agree with the district court’s finding that Niewind’s printed prelien notice was not in bold type as required by the statute. Whether the district court erred in applying the law to this fact is reviewed de novo. See Morton Bldgs., Inc. v. Commissioner of Revenue, 488 N.W.2d 254, 257 (Minn.1992).

Minnesota law specifies the content and form of a contractor’s prelien notice and provides, in relevant part:

The notice, whether included in a written contract or separately given, must be in at least 10-point bold type, if printed, or in capital letters, if typewritten
⅜ ⅝ ⅜ ⅜
A person who fails to provide the notice shall not have the lien and remedy provided by this chapter.

Minn.Stat. § 514.011, subd. 1 (emphasis added).

Niewind’s prelien notice provided the wording required by the statute in 11-point type, meeting the statute’s “at least 10-point type” requirement for printed forms, but the notice was neither bold nor in capital letters. The district court denied the Carlsons’ motion for summary judgment, finding that the statement was printed in 11-point type (larger type than most other words on the proposal statement) within the same square as the Carl-sons’ signatures and that the Carlsons did not claim specific prejudice from the absence of bold print. We understand the district court’s reluctance to invalidate the lien on a technicality, but the unambiguous language of the statute and caselaw require strict compliance with the statute. See Minn.Stat. § 645.16 (2000) (“When the words of a law in their application to an existing situation are clear and free from all ambiguity the letter of the law shall not be disregarded under the pretext of pursuing the spirit”).

“[Although the remedial intent of legislation may be considered, the clear language of a statute cannot be disregarded in the name of pursuing the spirit rather than the letter of the law.” London Constr. Co. v. Roseville Townhomes, Inc., 473 N.W.2d 917, 919 (Minn.App.1991) (citing Minn.Stat. § 645.16 (1990)). The supreme court has rejected a district court’s characterization of the service requirement for a prelien notice as a “mere technicality” and stated that there must be strict compliance with the statute’s requirements. Merle’s Constr. Co. v. Berg, 442 N.W.2d 300, 302 (Minn.1989). This court has affirmed the rejection of a lien claim for failure of a subcontractor to prove that prelien notice was given to the owners within the 45-day limit contained in the statute governing subcontractor’s prelien notices. Diethelm v. Cavanaugh, 349 N.W.2d 608, 610 (Minn.App.1984) (discussing statutory prelien notice requirements for subcontractors under Minn.Stat. § 514.011, subd. 2 (1980)). In Klingelhutz v. Woodsmen Constr., Inc., we held that the mechanics’ lien statute should be strictly construed in determining whether the lien attaches and that there must be strict compliance with the prelien notice statutory requirements. Klingelhutz v. Woodsmen Constr., Inc., 455 N.W.2d 98, 100-01 (Minn.App.1990) (denying lien to subcontractor whose prelien notice stated owner could withhold amount of their claim for 90 days from completion of improvement, rather than 120-day withholding period provided for by statute), review denied (Minn. July 13,1990).

Niewind argues that “substantial” compliance with the statute is all that is required to perfect a lien, citing Armco Steel Corp. v. Chicago & N.W. Ry., 276 Minn. 133, 149 N.W.2d 23 (1967). In Dolder v. Griffin, the supreme court noted that counterpoised to this repeatedly stated principle is the principle that the statute should be strictly construed as to prelien notice. Dolder v. Griffin, 323 N.W.2d 773, 779-80 (Minn.1982). The Dolder court stated that the competing policy considerations are harmonized by the following reasoning:

Mechanic’s lien laws are strictly construed as to the question whether a lien attaches, but are construed liberally after the lien has been created. While the Mechanic’s Lien Act is to be liberally construed as a remedial act, yet mechanics’ liens exist only by virtue of the statute creating them, and such statutes must be strictly followed with reference to all requirements upon which the right to a lien depends.

Id. at 780 (quoting Annot., 76 A.L.R.3d 605, 618 (1977) (footnotes omitted)).

If the legislature had merely intended to require that notice be set out in a manner likely to bring it to the attention of the buyer, it would have said so. Instead, the legislature stated that the notice “must be in at least 10-point bold type if printed, or in capital letters, if typewritten * * *. A person who fails to provide the notice shall not have the lien * * * provided by this chapter.” MinmStat. § 514.011, subd. 1 (emphasis added). Because the statute is clear, there is nothing to interpret and the failure to strictly comply with the statute defeats Niewind’s mechanic’s lien. Accordingly, we reverse the district court’s denial of Carlsons’ motion for summary judgment and its award of costs and fees to Niewind and remand for entry of judgment in favor of Carlsons.

2. Attorney fees

Because we have determined that Nie-wind did not have a valid lien, we do not reach the issue of whether the district court abused its discretion in determining the amount of Niewind’s attorney fees.

DECISION

A contractor must strictly comply with all statutory requirements for prelien notices. Because Niewind did not provide prehen notice in the statutorily required type, the mechanic’s hen did not attach to the Carlsons’ property.

Reversed.

      . A subcontractor "does not lose the right to the lien for failure to strictly comply with this subdivision if a good faith effort is made to comply, unless the owner * * * proves damage as a direct result of the failure to comply.” (Minn.Stat. § 514.011) subd. 2(b) (2000). But the strict compliance requirement is not relaxed for contractors. See id.., subd. 1.