Minnesota Easements, Cartways and Eminent Domain Laws (2026)

In Minnesota, a prescriptive easement takes 15 years of adverse use. No statute sets that period for easements; the Minnesota Supreme Court borrows the 15-year limit on actions to recover real estate in Minn. Stat. 541.02 by analogy (Romans v. Nadler, 1944). On eminent domain, Minnesota defines public use "exclusively" and provides that the public benefits of economic development "do not by themselves constitute a public use or public purpose" (Minn. Stat. 117.025, subd. 11).

This page covers both halves of Minnesota law: easements between private landowners first, then the government's power to take private property. For other states, see our guide to easement laws by state.

Information last verified on 2026-10-19. This article has not been reviewed by a licensed lawyer.

Jurisdiction scope: This page covers Minnesota state law on private easements (Minn. Stat. 541.02, 164.08, 507.34, 500.30, 541.023 and chapter 84C, and Minnesota Supreme Court decisions) and on condemnation of private property (Minn. Const. art. I, sec. 13 and Minnesota Statutes chapter 117). It does not cover adverse possession of title (see our Minnesota squatters rights and adverse possession guide), homeowners association covenants, zoning or regulatory takings (beyond one compensation statute noted below), condemnation by the federal government (covered in our national guide), or city and county ordinances.

Minnesota Easement and Eminent Domain Rules at a Glance

Prescriptive Easements in Minnesota: The 15-Year Rule

A prescriptive easement is a right to keep using another person's land (most often a driveway, path or road) that is earned through long adverse use rather than granted in a deed. Minnesota has no statute that sets a prescriptive period for easements. Instead, the courts borrow the period that applies to recovering land itself. Minn. Stat. 541.02 provides:

"No action for the recovery of real estate or the possession thereof shall be maintained unless it appears that the plaintiff, the plaintiff's ancestor, predecessor, or grantor was seized or possessed of the premises in question within 15 years before the beginning of the action."

In Romans v. Nadler, 217 Minn. 174 (1944), the Minnesota Supreme Court explained how that limit reaches easements:

"Statutes of limitation do not by their terms apply to actions involving incorporeal hereditaments such as easements. An easement by prescription rests upon the fiction of a lost grant. By analogy to title by adverse possession, an adverse user of an easement for the statutory period is held to be evidence of the prescriptive right."

The same opinion lists the essentials of adverse possession, the doctrine the easement rule borrows from: "There are five essentials of adverse possession. It must be hostile and under a claim of right, actual, open, continuous, and exclusive." The court added that "occasional and sporadic trespasses for temporary purposes, because they do not indicate permanent occupation and appropriation of land, do not satisfy the requirements of hostility and continuity." The court qualified how those rules carry over to easements: "the same continuity of user is not required in cases of prescriptive easements as in those of title by adverse possession," because "the requirement of continuity depends upon the nature and character of the right claimed."

When use is presumed adverse

In Ehle v. Prosser, 293 Minn. 183 (1972), the Minnesota Supreme Court, quoting its 1949 decision in Dozier v. Krmpotich, stated the rule: where the claimant "has shown open, visible, continuous, and unmolested use for the statutory period, inconsistent with the rights of the owner of the servient estate and under circumstances from which his knowledge and acquiescence may be inferred," the use is presumed to be under a claim of right and adverse. The landowner then carries the burden of rebutting that presumption with evidence that the use was permissive.

In Boldt v. Roth, 618 N.W.2d 393 (2000), the Minnesota Supreme Court stated the claimant's burden: a claimant "must prove by clear and convincing evidence" that the land was used "in an actual, open, continuous, exclusive, and hostile manner for 15 years." The court added that "if she proves actual, open, continuous, and exclusive use, then hostility of the use is presumed."

The rule differs between relatives. Where family members own both parcels, the relationship gives rise to "the inference, if not the presumption" that the use is permissive. Boldt held that, absent evidence of continued permission, a transfer of the burdened parcel to a stranger makes the use hostile and starts the 15-year period.

Adverse possession of title is a separate claim

Adverse possession of the land itself also runs 15 years under Minn. Stat. 541.02, but it has added requirements. The statute requires a claimant to have paid taxes for at least five consecutive years where the land was assessed as a separate tract, and in Ehle v. Prosser the Minnesota Supreme Court stated that a claimant to title must show the required possession "by clear and convincing evidence," the same standard Boldt v. Roth applies to prescriptive easements. The tax requirement concerns ownership, not easements. Our Minnesota squatters rights page covers title claims, and our Minnesota statute of limitations guide lists the state's other filing deadlines.

How Permission Prevents a Prescriptive Easement

The Minnesota rule turns on permission. In Ehle v. Prosser the Minnesota Supreme Court, again quoting Dozier v. Krmpotich, stated that "where the user is permissive on the part of the owner, there can be no prescriptive right, and that, if the user was permissive in its inception, it must become adverse to the knowledge of the owner of the servient estate before any prescriptive rights can arise."

Read together with the presumption described above, the rule works in two steps. Use that began with permission must become adverse to the owner's knowledge before any prescriptive right can arise. And once a claimant shows open, visible, continuous and unmolested use for the 15 years, the burden shifts to the landowner to show that the use was permissive.

The same passage separates permission from acquiescence. "Acquiescence," the court said, means "passive conduct on the part of the owner of the servient estate consisting of failure on his part to assert his paramount rights against the invasion thereof by the adverse user," while "'Permission' means more than mere acquiescence; it denotes the grant of a permission in fact or a license." Silently tolerating a neighbor's use is therefore different from granting permission.

For recreational use, Minn. Stat. 604A.27 provides that no dedication takes effect from recreational use "for any length of time except as expressly permitted or provided in writing by the owner," and that an owner's permission does not grant "an easement or other property right in the land except as expressly provided in writing by the owner."

Public Land and Roads That Become Public

Minnesota's limitation periods apply to actions by the state and its political subdivisions, but Minn. Stat. 541.01 provides that "no occupant of a public way, levee, square, or other ground dedicated or appropriated to public use shall acquire, by reason of occupancy, any title thereto." In the other direction, a city of the first class may not acquire title to real property "or any right or easement therein by prescription or adverse possession" (Minn. Stat. 465.013).

A road that has been "used and kept in repair and worked for at least six years continuously as a public highway by a road authority" is deemed dedicated to the public "to the width of the actual use" (Minn. Stat. 160.05, subd. 1). Before working on a private road, the road authority must send the owner a certified-mail notice warning that the road may become a public road and that the owner will receive no compensation from the road authority when it is dedicated. Without that notice, the six-year rule does not apply, and it does not apply to platted streets within cities.

Implied Easements When Land Is Divided

When one owner divides land, an easement can arise by implication. In Romanchuk v. Plotkin, 215 Minn. 156 (1943), the Minnesota Supreme Court noted that it is "commonly said" that three things are essential to an easement by implication on a severance of ownership: "(1) a separation of title; (2) the use which gives rise to the easement shall have been so long continued and apparent as to show that it was intended to be permanent; and (3) that the easement is necessary to the beneficial enjoyment of the land granted." The court added that "'necessary' does not mean indispensable, but reasonably necessary or convenient to the beneficial use of the property."

In Olson v. Mullen, 244 Minn. 31 (1955), the court said that "It is not always necessary that the existence of all these essentials be present; they are only aids in determining whether such easement exists." It also held that "The necessity at the time of the conveyance governs" and that "The burden of proving necessity rests upon the one claiming the easement."

Landlocked Land: Minnesota's Cartway Statute

Minnesota also gives some landlocked owners a statutory route to a public road through the town board. Minn. Stat. 164.08, subd. 2 provides:

"Upon petition presented to the town board by the owner of a tract of land containing at least five acres, who has no access thereto except over a navigable waterway or over the lands of others, or whose access thereto is less than two rods in width, the town board by resolution shall establish a cartway at least two rods wide connecting the petitioner's land with a public road."

The same subdivision adds that a town board "shall establish a cartway upon a petition of an owner of a tract of land that, as of January 1, 1998, was on record as a separate parcel, contained at least two but less than five acres, and has no access thereto except over a navigable waterway or over the lands of others." The board may choose an alternative route that is "less disruptive and damaging to the affected landowners and in the public's best interest." In unorganized territory the county board acts as the town board, and the proceedings follow Minn. Stat. 164.07.

The cost falls on the landlocked owner: "The amount of damages shall be paid by the petitioner to the town before such cartway is opened." Damages include the compensation to the burdened owner plus the town's professional, hearing, administrative, recording and other costs, and the board may require the petitioner to post a bond. Unless the board resolves that spending town road and bridge funds is in the public interest, "the grading or other construction work and the maintenance of the cartway is the responsibility of the petitioner." When the town does not maintain a cartway, maintenance costs are divided equitably among adjacent owners and owners whose only access is the cartway, and the board's apportionment may be appealed to district court within 30 days (subd. 3).

Express, Solar, Wind and Conservation Easements

Minnesota's recording act governs conveyances of real estate. Minn. Stat. 507.34 requires that "every conveyance of real estate shall be recorded in the office of the county recorder of the county where such real estate is situated," and makes an unrecorded conveyance "void as against any subsequent purchaser in good faith and for a valuable consideration of the same real estate, or any part thereof, whose conveyance is first duly recorded," and against certain attachments and judgments. Because a "conveyance" includes "every instrument in writing whereby any interest in real estate is created" (Minn. Stat. 507.01), an unrecorded easement grant is at risk if the burdened land is sold to a good-faith buyer who records first. To look up recorded documents for a parcel, see our guide to Minnesota property records.

Two kinds of easements have their own statutes:

• Solar and wind easements. Under Minn. Stat. 500.30, subd. 2, these "shall be created in writing and shall be filed, duly recorded, and indexed" with the county recorder, and a recorded easement runs "with the land or lands benefited and burdened."
• Conservation easements. Minn. Stat. 84C.01, part of Minnesota's conservation easement chapter, defines a conservation easement as "a nonpossessory interest of a holder in real property imposing limitations or affirmative obligations" for conservation-related purposes the definition lists.

How a Minnesota Easement Ends

Release. A written release that affects an easement is a "conveyance" under Minn. Stat. 507.01, which covers every written instrument "by which the title thereto may be affected in law or in equity," so the recording rules above apply to it. For releasing property interests by deed, see our Minnesota quitclaim deed guide.

Abandonment. In Lindberg v. Fasching, 667 N.W.2d 481 (2003), the Minnesota Court of Appeals stated that "A claim of abandonment can be upheld only where nonuse is accompanied by affirmative and unequivocal acts indicative of an intent to abandon and is inconsistent with the continued use of the easement." Nonuse without such acts does not end an easement.

The 40-year rule. Minnesota's Marketable Record Title Act, Minn. Stat. 541.023, bars many stale recorded claims. Under subdivision 1, "as against a claim of title based upon a source of title, which source has then been of record at least 40 years," no action affecting the possession or title of real estate may be commenced to enforce "any right, claim, interest, incumbrance, or lien founded upon any instrument, event or transaction which was executed or occurred more than 40 years prior" unless a notice has been recorded within 40 years as the statute requires. A claimant barred by the section "shall be conclusively presumed to have abandoned" the claim (subd. 5). Apart from a transition rule for certain proceedings pending on August 1, 2001 or begun before February 1, 2002, the section "does not apply to real property while it remains registered according to chapter 508 or 508A," the Torrens system (subd. 2a).

The act has exceptions. Subdivision 6 provides that it does not "bar the rights of any person, partnership, state agency or department, or corporation in possession of real estate." In Lindberg v. Fasching the Court of Appeals held that whether an easement holder's use "rises to the level of possession required by the Marketable Title Act depends on the nature of the easement and whether its use gave adequate notice of its existence and put the prudent person on inquiry."

Eminent Domain in Minnesota

Eminent domain is the government's power to take private property for public use with just compensation. For federal law and every other state, see our guide to eminent domain laws by state.

The Minnesota Constitution, art. I, sec. 13, provides: "Private property shall not be taken, destroyed or damaged for public use without just compensation therefor, first paid or secured." The text covers property "destroyed or damaged" as well as property taken, and requires the compensation to be "first paid or secured." Chapter 117 defines a taking broadly, to include "every interference, under the power of eminent domain, with the possession, enjoyment, or value of private property" (Minn. Stat. 117.025).

At the federal level, the U.S. Supreme Court held in Kelo v. City of New London (2005) that an economic development plan that "unquestionably serves a public purpose" satisfied the Fifth Amendment's public use requirement, and stressed that "nothing in our opinion precludes any State from placing further restrictions on its exercise of the takings power." In Tyler v. Hennepin County (2023), a Minnesota tax-forfeiture case, the Court held that "Minnesota may not extinguish a property interest that it recognizes everywhere else to avoid paying just compensation when it is the one doing the taking."

Can Minnesota Take Property for a Private Developer or a Pipeline?

Minnesota limits public use by statute. Minn. Stat. 117.012, subd. 2, provides that "eminent domain may only be used for a public use or public purpose," and Minn. Stat. 117.025, subd. 11 defines that phrase:

"(a) 'Public use' or 'public purpose' means, exclusively: (1) the possession, occupation, ownership, and enjoyment of the land by the general public, or by public agencies; (2) the creation or functioning of a public service corporation; or (3) mitigation of a blighted area, remediation of an environmentally contaminated area, reduction of abandoned property, or removal of a public nuisance. (b) The public benefits of economic development, including an increase in tax base, tax revenues, employment, or general economic health, do not by themselves constitute a public use or public purpose."

Three parts of the definition carry the most weight:

• Blight is defined narrowly. A "blighted area" is an area "(1) that is in urban use; and (2) where more than 50 percent of the buildings are structurally substandard" (subd. 6). For a blight, contamination, abandoned-property or nuisance taking, the condemning authority "must show the district court by preponderance of the evidence that the taking is necessary and for the designated public use" (Minn. Stat. 117.075). Before a local government starts such a taking, it must hold a public hearing with 30 to 60 days' notice, including certified mail to each owner, and vote at a regular meeting at least 30 days later (Minn. Stat. 117.0412). Any condemning authority taking property for blight or contamination may not take buildings that are not structurally substandard, or uncontaminated parcels, unless there is no feasible alternative, and must take all possible steps to minimize such takings (Minn. Stat. 117.027).
• Utilities and pipelines count. Subdivision 10 defines a public service corporation to include, among others, gas, electric, telephone and cable communications companies, cooperative associations, natural gas pipeline companies, crude oil or petroleum products pipeline companies, municipal utilities, common carriers, watershed districts and drainage authorities.
• Some takings sit outside chapter 117. Under section 117.012, subd. 3, the chapter "does not apply to the taking of property under laws relating to drainage or to town roads when those laws themselves expressly provide for the taking and specifically prescribe the procedure."

What the Condemning Authority Must Do Before Filing

Chapter 117 requires several steps before a condemnation petition is presented, though Minn. Stat. 117.189 exempts most public service corporation projects from them (see below).

• Appraisal. For an acquisition greater than $25,000, the acquiring authority must obtain at least one appraisal and give the owner a copy "at the time an offer is made, but no later than 60 days before presenting a petition" (Minn. Stat. 117.036, subd. 2). The owner is entitled to reimbursement for the reasonable costs of the owner's own appraisal, up to $3,000 for single-family and two-family residential property and minimum damage acquisitions and $10,000 for other property, provided the owner submits it at least five days before a condemnation commissioners' hearing, and the authority must pay the reimbursement within 30 days after receiving it. For acquisitions under $25,000 the authority may use a minimum damage acquisition report instead of an appraisal, and in every case it must inform the owner of the right to obtain an appraisal.
• Negotiation. The authority "must make a good faith attempt to negotiate personally with the owner of the property in order to acquire the property by direct purchase instead of the use of eminent domain proceedings" (subd. 3).
• Notice of the petition. Notice of the petition and of the time and place of presenting it must be served at least 20 days before that time (Minn. Stat. 117.055, subd. 2). The notice must warn the owner of the 60-day rule described in the next section.

Section 117.189 provides that sections 117.031, 117.036, 117.055 subd. 2(b), 117.186, 117.187, 117.188 and 117.52 subds. 1a and 4 "do not apply to the use of eminent domain authority by public service corporations for any purpose other than construction or expansion of: (1) a high-voltage transmission line of 100 kilovolts or more ...; (2) a natural gas, petroleum, or petroleum products pipeline ...; or (3) a light rail transit or bus rapid transit line." In other words, those protections apply to government condemnors and to those three kinds of utility projects. Even where section 117.189 applies, a public utility, municipal utility, cooperative electric association, or natural gas, crude oil or petroleum products pipeline company "must provide the property owner with a copy of each appraisal it has obtained" before petitioning (Minn. Stat. 117.054).

Deadlines to Challenge a Taking or Appeal the Award

Minnesota's condemnation deadlines are short, and missing one can end the challenge.

• Public use, necessity and authority: 60 days. The petition notice must state that "a party wishing to challenge the public use or public purpose, necessity, or authority for a taking must appear at the court hearing and state the objection or must appeal within 60 days of a court order," and that an order approving the taking "is final unless an appeal is brought within 60 days after service of the order on the party" (Minn. Stat. 117.055, subd. 2). Section 117.075 states the same finality rule.
• Commissioners set damages. By order, the court appoints "three disinterested commissioners" to assess damages (Minn. Stat. 117.075).
• Appeal of the award: 40 days. "At any time within 40 days from the date that the report has been filed, any party to the proceedings may appeal to the district court from any award of damages embraced in the report." If one party appeals, any other party may appeal within 50 days from the filing date (Minn. Stat. 117.145). An appeal takes both filing a notice with the court administrator and serving it by mail or E-Service on the persons listed in the petitioner's affidavit of mailing and on the petitioner. A 2025 amendment (Laws 2025, ch. 2, art. 3) added E-Service and service on the petitioner; the 40- and 50-day periods did not change.
• Burden on appeal. On appeal, "the owners shall go forward with the evidence and have the burden of proof as in any other civil action," and the court or jury reassesses the damages de novo (Minn. Stat. 117.175). Either side is entitled to a jury trial (Minn. Stat. 117.165), and after the verdict the court may, in its discretion, allow the owner reasonable expert witness and appraisal fees, while the condemnor recovers none (117.175, subd. 2).

Other owner deadlines and timing rules

Early possession (quick-take)

Under Minn. Stat. 117.042, a condemning authority that wants possession before the award must, "at least 90 days prior to the date on which possession is to be taken, notify the owner of the intent to possess by notice served by certified mail," and before taking title and possession must pay the owner or deposit with the court "an amount equal to petitioner's approved appraisal of value." Amounts deposited with the court "shall be paid out under the direction of the court." Without a quick-take, the condemnor gets title and possession after the commissioners' award is filed: on payment of the award if the parties waive appeal, or on payment or deposit of three-fourths of the award if they do not. A deposit over $10,000 goes into an interest-bearing account, with the interest paid to the eventual recipient.

If the award is not paid

Damages bear interest from the filing of the commissioners' report or the date of the condemnor's possession, whichever comes first. If the award is not paid within 70 days after the filing, within 45 days after final judgment in case of an appeal, or within 45 days after a stipulation of settlement, the court on the owner's motion "shall vacate the award and dismiss the proceedings" (Minn. Stat. 117.195).

When the government takes or damages property without condemning it

An owner whose property has been taken without a condemnation proceeding can ask a court to order the government to begin one. In Spaeth v. City of Plymouth, 344 N.W.2d 815 (1984), the Minnesota Supreme Court upheld a writ of mandamus "compelling the City to commence eminent domain proceedings." An owner who succeeds in such an action may petition for reasonable costs and expenses, "including reasonable attorney, appraisal and engineering fees," allowed under the federal Uniform Relocation Act standards (Minn. Stat. 117.045).

In Beer v. Minnesota Power & Light Co., 400 N.W.2d 732 (1987), the court stated that "In Minnesota neither condemnation proceedings nor inverse condemnation actions are governed by a special statute of limitations." It distinguished two situations: the 15-year limitation of Minn. Stat. 541.02 "is applicable in cases in which there has been an actual taking of property," but "in actions for inverse condemnation or compensation for damages resulting from the limitation of access only, where the public authority is not in adverse possession of the landowner's property, the six-year statute of limitations is applicable." Beer identifies that six-year statute as Minn. Stat. 541.05, subd. 1.

How Just Compensation Is Figured in Minnesota

The constitution requires "just compensation," and chapter 117 adds specific rules:

• Land taken and damage to the remainder. On an owner's request, the commissioners' report must show separately the damages for the value of the land taken and any damages to the remainder (Minn. Stat. 117.085). The commissioners "may in their discretion" also allow reasonable appraisal fees up to $1,500 for single-family and two-family residential property and minimum damage acquisitions and $5,000 for other property, unless the fee was reimbursed under section 117.036. For public service corporation takings the cap is $1,500 for all property, except $3,000 for a high-voltage transmission line and the section 117.085 amounts for light rail or bus rapid transit (Minn. Stat. 117.189(b)).
• Business losses. "If a business or trade is destroyed by a taking, the owner shall be compensated for loss of going concern, unless the condemning authority establishes" one of the statutory exceptions by a preponderance of the evidence. A business owner who shows that a government entity's actions permanently eliminated 51 percent or more of the driveway access into and out of the business, and that as a result the business's revenue fell by 51 percent or more, may receive reasonable compensation "not to exceed the three previous years' revenues minus the cost of goods sold," and that claim must be made "no later than one year after completion of the project" (Minn. Stat. 117.186).
• Minimum compensation on relocation. "When an owner must relocate, the amount of damages payable, at a minimum, must be sufficient for an owner to purchase a comparable property in the community and not less than the condemning authority's payment or deposit under section 117.042," to the extent the damages are not duplicated elsewhere in the award (Minn. Stat. 117.187).
• Removing a nonconforming use. A local ordinance or regulation that requires removing a legal nonconforming use as a condition of a permit or other approval "constitutes a taking and is prohibited without the payment of just compensation," except where the approval is for a building or structure that cannot be built without physically moving the nonconforming use (Minn. Stat. 117.184).
• No forced swaps. "The condemning authority must not require the owner to accept as part of the compensation due any substitute or replacement property" (Minn. Stat. 117.188).

Chapter 117's compensation sections (117.031, 117.036, 117.085, 117.186, 117.187, 117.188, 117.195 and related sections) contain no percentage bonus for homes. Sections 117.186 to 117.188 are among those that section 117.189 exempts for most public service corporation projects.

Attorney Fees, Relocation and Buying the Property Back

Attorney fees. Minn. Stat. 117.031(a) provides that if the final judgment or award "is more than 40 percent greater than the last written offer of compensation made by the condemning authority prior to the filing of the petition, the court shall award the owner reasonable attorney fees, litigation expenses, appraisal fees, other experts fees, and other related costs." For this comparison the award "shall be determined as of the date of taking" and does not include any amount for loss of a going concern unless the last written offer included one. At 20 to 40 percent above that offer the court may award them, and "no attorney fees shall be awarded under this paragraph if the final judgment or award of damages does not exceed $25,000." Separately, under paragraph (b), when "the court determines that a taking is not for a public use or is unlawful, the court shall award the owner reasonable attorney fees and other related expenses, fees, and costs." Section 117.195 also lets the owner recover "reasonable costs and expenses including attorneys' fees" when a proceeding is dismissed for nonpayment or discontinued by the condemnor. Section 117.031 does not apply to most public service corporation projects (Minn. Stat. 117.189).

Relocation. Where federal relocation benefits are unavailable because there is no federal financial participation, the acquiring authority "shall provide all relocation assistance, services, payments and benefits required by" the federal Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 as a cost of acquisition, and must reimburse a displaced business for eligible expenses up to a maximum of $50,000 (Minn. Stat. 117.52, subds. 1 and 1a). Section 117.189 exempts most public service corporation projects from subdivisions 1a and 4.

Buying the property back. Except as provided in other statutes the section lists (mostly highway and state-land provisions), if the condemning authority's governing body determines that property acquired under chapter 117 "has not been used and is no longer needed for a public use," it must offer to sell it to the former owner, "if the former owner can be located," at "the original price determined by the condemnation process or the current fair market value of the property, whichever is lower," unless federal highway or transit funding requires a different value (Minn. Stat. 117.226). If the former owner cannot be located or declines, the authority records a certificate ending the right.

Related Minnesota Guides

• Easement laws by state
• Eminent domain laws by state
• Minnesota squatters rights and adverse possession
• Minnesota property records
• Minnesota quitclaim deeds
• Minnesota statute of limitations

This page provides general legal information about Minnesota easement and eminent domain law, current as of 2026-10-19. It is not legal advice. For advice about a specific property or condemnation, contact a lawyer licensed in Minnesota.

Last updated: 2026-10-19.

Frequently Asked Questions

How long does it take to get a prescriptive easement in Minnesota?

Fifteen years. No statute sets the period for easements, but the Minnesota Supreme Court applies the 15-year limit in Minn. Stat. 541.02 by analogy to adverse possession (Romans v. Nadler, 1944). The claimant must prove actual, open, continuous, exclusive and hostile use for the 15 years by clear and convincing evidence (Boldt v. Roth, 2000).

How do I stop someone from getting a prescriptive easement in Minnesota?

Under Ehle v. Prosser (Minn. 1972), use made with the owner's permission creates no prescriptive right, and permissive use can ripen only if it later becomes adverse to the owner's knowledge. Once a claimant shows open, visible, continuous and unmolested use for 15 years, the owner bears the burden of proving the use was permissive. The court has said that permission means more than an owner's passive acquiescence; it is a permission in fact or a license. For recreational use, Minn. Stat. 604A.27 provides that permission grants no easement except as the owner expressly provides in writing.

What can I do if my land is landlocked in Minnesota?

Minn. Stat. 164.08, subd. 2 lets the owner of a tract of at least five acres with no access except over a navigable waterway or other people's land, or with access under two rods wide, petition the town board, which shall establish a cartway at least two rods wide to a public road. A tract of two to five acres that was a separate parcel of record on January 1, 1998 and has no access also qualifies. The petitioner pays the damages to the town before the cartway opens and generally builds and maintains it. Separately, an easement by implication can arise when one owner divides land and an apparent, long-continued use is reasonably necessary to the part conveyed (Romanchuk v. Plotkin, 1943).

Is a prescriptive easement the same as adverse possession in Minnesota?

No. Adverse possession transfers title, and Minn. Stat. 541.02 adds a requirement to pay taxes for at least five consecutive years for separately assessed tracts. A prescriptive easement gives only a right to use land, and Minnesota borrows the 15-year period by analogy (Romans v. Nadler). Both claims must be proved by clear and convincing evidence (Ehle v. Prosser; Boldt v. Roth).

How does an easement end in Minnesota?

A written release of an easement is a conveyance under Minn. Stat. 507.01, so the recording act applies to it. Abandonment requires more than nonuse: the Minnesota Court of Appeals requires affirmative and unequivocal acts showing an intent to abandon (Lindberg v. Fasching, 2003). Under the Marketable Record Title Act (Minn. Stat. 541.023), a recorded claim more than 40 years old can be barred unless a notice was recorded, but the act does not apply to Torrens land and does not bar a person in possession.

Can Minnesota use eminent domain for private development?

Minn. Stat. 117.025, subd. 11 says the public benefits of economic development, including more tax base, tax revenue or jobs, do not by themselves constitute a public use or public purpose. Takings to mitigate a blighted area, remediate contamination, reduce abandoned property or remove a public nuisance remain public uses, and the condemnor must prove necessity and the designated public use by a preponderance of the evidence (Minn. Stat. 117.075).

Can a pipeline company use eminent domain in Minnesota?

The creation or functioning of a public service corporation is a public use under Minn. Stat. 117.025, subd. 11, and subd. 10 defines public service corporation to include natural gas pipeline companies and crude oil or petroleum products pipeline companies. Under Minn. Stat. 117.189, the chapter's fee, appraisal and minimum-compensation protections apply to the construction or expansion of a natural gas, petroleum or petroleum products pipeline.

Do I get attorney fees in a Minnesota eminent domain case?

Minn. Stat. 117.031 requires the court to award fees when the final award, determined as of the date of taking, is more than 40% above the last written pre-petition offer, allows them at 20% to 40%, and bars an award under that paragraph when the award is $25,000 or less. Fees are also mandatory when a taking is not for a public use or is unlawful, and Minn. Stat. 117.195 allows fees when a proceeding is dismissed for nonpayment or discontinued. Section 117.189 exempts most public service corporation projects from section 117.031.

How long do I have to appeal a condemnation award in Minnesota?

Any party may appeal the commissioners' award to the district court within 40 days from the date their report is filed, by filing a notice of appeal with the court administrator and serving it as the statute requires, and another party may then appeal within 50 days from that date (Minn. Stat. 117.145). On appeal the owner bears the burden of proof and the damages are reassessed de novo (Minn. Stat. 117.175).