Laserfiche WebLink
22. With r«spect to paragraphs 27, 29, 34 and 39, said <br />paragraphs ars rs-allsgations of prior paragraphs and tha answsrs <br />Btatsd to ths individual paragraphs in this answsr shall apply to <br />tha ra-allagations. <br />23. As and for affimativa dafansas, tha City of Orono <br />K. That tha City of Orono has "possassion** of tha disputad <br />roadvay within tha aaaning of Tha Markatabla Tit la Act, <br />Minn. Stat. $541,023, through a conbination of public usa <br />and acknowladganant of tha roadway by tha Plaintiffs and <br />thair pradacassors in intarast. <br />b. Tha public has usad tha disputad proparty for accass to <br />Laka Minnatonka which is a regional rasourca. It is <br />against tha policy of tha Stata of Minnesota to allow <br />abandonaant of said traditional accassas to public <br />resources. <br />c. By Plaintiffs' acknowladgaaant and conduct consistent <br />with tha axistanca of a roadway on tha disputad property, <br />they have waived any right to assart that tha roadway <br />does not exist over tha disputad property. <br />d. Tha Plaintiffs have suffered no daaaga as a result of any <br />actions of tha City of Orono. <br />a. Tha Plaintiffs assuaad all risk of any alleged daaagas as <br />a result of thair acquisition of tha property with notice <br />that public accass usa occurred adjacent to thair <br />property. <br />f. Plaintiffs have failed to state a claia upon which relief <br />can be granted.