Laserfiche WebLink
19. The City did not record with the County Recorder or file <br />in the Office of the Registrar of Titles an instrument or notice <br />sworn to by City or rts attorney, or agent, claiming or creating <br />the alleged public road. <br />20. «ore than 40 years have lapsed from the date of the <br />supervisor's road order which purportedly creates the alleged <br />public road. <br />21. City was not in actual possession of the Disputeo <br />property when title to the Jerome Property -as registered. <br />22. City has not been in actual possession of the Disputed <br />Property over the last 40 years. <br />23. City does not maintain the Disputed Property as a public <br />road. <br />24. City has not improved the Disputed Property as a public <br />road or highway. <br />25. Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes $541,023 (the "Marketable <br />Title Act"), the alleged public road is presumed abandoned. <br />26. City cannot enforce the alleged public toad as an <br />encumbrance on the Jerome Property or the Lindell Property. <br />COUNT ONE <br />(Declaratory Judgment) <br />27. Paragraphs 1-26 are restated, realleged and incorporated <br />by reference. <br />28. Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Chapter 555, Plaintiffs <br />are entitled to a Declaratory Judgment that the Jerome Property <br />and the Lindell Property are not subject to the alleged public <br />road and that City does not have a legally valid interest in, <br />- 4 -