Laserfiche WebLink
LINDQUIST & VENNUM p l lp <br />Letter to Clifford M. Greene. Esq <br />November 20, 1998 <br />Page 3 <br />the public is the very highest kind of evidence of public acceptance of a dedication." <br />Benatson 246 N.W.2d at 584. “A public user may be established by a <br />comparatively small number of persons." Id. “Among the differences between <br />statutory and common-law dedication,... is that no specific time period of public <br />use and maintenance is required for a common-law dedication. All that is required is <br />that intent and acceptance coincide, and thus dedication may be made instantly." <br />Woiahn v. Johnson. 297 N.W.2d 298, 308 (Minn. 1980) (citing Benatson. supra at <br />584). <br />In our conversations, Tom Barrett suggested that "public use" of a cul-de-sac road <br />cannot be established through use by the “end of the road" property owner or his or <br />her invitees. That proposition is, however, incorrect. Minnesota courts have <br />routinely found “public use" under both statutory and common-law dedication to <br />arise based on the use of the road by an "end of the road" land owner and his or her <br />invitees. As recently as April 14. 1998, the Minnesota Supreme Court affirmed a <br />Court of Appeal's decision that held use by a property owner and its invitee’s <br />constituted “public use." In the Request of Lafayette Development to Open 18'^ <br />Avenue South . 567 N.W.2d 743, 745 (Minn. App. 1997), aff’d, 576 N.W.2d 740 <br />(Minn. 1998). In Lafayette, "the record indicates that respondent, its tenants, their <br />invitees, and adjacent land owner have used the end of 18'^ Avenue to access their <br />property for many years." Such use was sufficient for dedication; <br />Use by a 'comparatively small number of persons’ may establish use of <br />a roadway. Flynn v, Beisel. 257 Minn. 531, 541, 102 N.W.2d 284, 292 <br />(1960) (establishing public use under common-law dedication); <br />Anderson v. Birkeland. 229 Minn. 77. 82. 38 N.W.2d 215, 219 (1949) <br />(establishing n jblic use under statutory dedication and common law <br />dedication); Henlv v. Chisaoo County. 370 N.W.2d 920, 923 (Minn. <br />App. 1985) (establishing public road under common law dedication). <br />And a use primarily by respondent, its tenants, and their invitees <br />does not defeat a finding of public use because “[i]t is the right of <br />travel by all the world, and not the exercise of the right,” that <br />makes a roadway public. Anderson. 229 Minn, at 82, 38 N.W.2d at <br />219 “holding with seasonal use of road by cottage owners, friends, and <br />tradesmen sufficiently establish public use)." <br />IX>C» I0744SU I