Laserfiche WebLink
IV. CLAIMS FOR RELIEF <br /> COUNT I <br /> Declaratory Judgment That the Conservation Easement Is Invalid <br /> 84. Plaintiffs restate and re-allege all preceding paragraphs of this Complaint as <br /> if fully set forth herein. <br /> 85. Plaintiffs' claim involves a genuine conflict in tangible interests between <br /> parties with adverse interests, all of whom are parties to this proceeding. <br /> 86. Plaintiffs' rights as to the Conservation Easement can only be determined <br /> by a declaratory judgment rather than through presenting hypothetical facts that would <br /> form an advisory opinion. <br /> 87. Pursuant to section 84C.02(d) of Minnesota's adoption of the Uniform <br /> Conservation Easement Act, Minn. Stat. Ch. 84C, "[a]n interest in real property in <br /> existence at the time a conservation easement is created is not impaired by it unless the <br /> owner of the interest is a party to the conservation easement or consents to it." <br /> 88. Plaintiffs were the equitable owners of, and had a protectable property <br /> interest in, the Property at the time the Conservation Easement was created by reason of <br /> the executed Purchase Agreement. <br /> 89. The Conservation Easement falsely states that "there are no unrecorded <br /> interests in the easement premises." <br /> 90. The Conservation Easement is subject to Orono City Code § 78-1639, <br /> which provides that "[t]he developer shall establish covenants documenting the elements <br /> of the development to be protected and how they are to be protected, and shall establish a <br /> 15 <br />