Laserfiche WebLink
\ i It I' 1. H I IV V, -if'LNi’l. I 111 <br />Thoxas 3. Barrett <br />May 21, 1991 <br />Page Three_ _ _ _ _ <br />int^int. 'n»*i laed-affirmatively Its opponent 3 _ <br />owner le free to present evidence that h.e in- <br />Landed Lo continue to ago or that cessatTon was <br />beyond his control, other states have adopted■yond nis control. otner aracee nave aaupiiewt <br />tie rule. See Martin v. Beehan, 6^9 $.W.2U 29 <br />(ky. App. 1983); ylIllaxs v. Salem Township, 92 <br />Pa. Crawlth. 634, tou A.2J 933 (1983), app. den. <br />(Pa. Aug. 24, 1907). <br />The trial court determined that appellants <br />failed to preaent any credible evidence that <br />they intended to continue the use or that Its <br />ceaeatloii was beyond their control." (emphasis <br />added) <br />In so ruling, the Mimies*ota Appellate Court cited the Ci ty of <br />Minot case, 212 N.W.2J Q41, which I cited to the City Council, and <br />quoted that case as follows: <br />"The North Dakota Supreme Court determined that <br />a presumption of intent to abandon arises upon <br />expiration of the applicable termination period <br />unless cessation of the use is beyond the con­ <br />trol of the property owner. City of Minot, 212 <br />N.W.2d at 041. T>ie court held that the noncon­ <br />forming use could continue because cessation <br />was beyond the control of the mortuary." <br />Accordingly# I believe that the Minnesota Appellate Court <br />this Issue two weeks after the case Mr. Nettles cites to <br />the City Council. In the Isanti case, the court clearly opened <br />the door Cor a landowner such as my client to present evidence <br />that he intended to continue the use or that its cessation was <br />beyond his control. Ws presented ample evidence of the depressed <br />state of the marliia—related market in the Lake Minnetonka area as <br />the sole reason for his decreased use and his problem in renting <br />or using this facility. In the Isanti case, the appellants failed <br />to present any credible evidence that they intended to continue <br />the use or that Its cessation was beyond their control. Just the <br />opposite again was present in this case in front of the Orono City <br />Counci1. <br />I am sure that after you review these cases, you will concur <br />with our arguments and the Supreme Court 's reasoning in the