Laserfiche WebLink
89. The Restrictive Covenant is a written contract. <br /> 90. The Restrictive Covenant as executed by the Defendant and Plaintiffs' <br /> predecessor-in-interest, failed to express the parties' true intentions. <br /> 91. The failure to provide that the Restrictive Covenant would not bar future <br /> development of the Lake Parcel should circumstances change was the result of <br /> mutual mistake by Defenda�lt and Plaintiffs' predecessor-in-interest. <br /> 92. Accordingly,the Restrictive Covenant should be reformed by order of this Court. <br /> COUNT X <br /> MANDAMUS—INVERSE CONDEMNATION <br /> (IN THE ALTERNATIVE) <br /> 93. Plaintiffs restate and reallege paragraphs 1 through 92 of the Complaint. <br /> 94. This cause of action is brought pursuant to Minn. Stat. §§ 586.01 ct. seq for an <br /> order directing Defendant to commence Condemnation proceedings. <br /> 95. Defendant's requirement that Plaintiffs' predecessor-in-interest sign the <br /> Restrictive Covenant constitutes a taking for which Plaintiffs are entitled to just <br /> compensation and other damages including fees and costs. <br /> 96. Defendant's action in placing a lift station in the public right-of-way which blocks <br /> Plaintiffs' access to the Lake Parcel constitutes a taking for which Plaintiffs are <br /> entitled to just compensation and other damages including fees and costs. <br /> 97. Defendant has failed to commence a condemnation action as requested by <br /> Plaintiffs. <br /> 98. The failure of Defendant to comply with its legal duties constitutes a public <br /> wrong specifically injurious to Plaintiffs, and as there is no plain, speedy, and <br /> adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law, Plaintiffs are entitled to a writ of <br /> mandamus ordering Defendant to commence a condemnation action against <br /> Plaintiffs. <br /> COUNT Xi <br /> MANllAMUS <br /> 99. Plaintiffs restate and reallege paragraphs 1 through 98 of the Complaint. <br /> " 10 <br />