Milford Matzke Jr. and Brenda Matzke v. City of Norwood Young America and…
Milford Matzke Jr. and Brenda Matzke v. City of Norwood Young America and Andrea Aukrust
- David Doty
- 0:24-cv-02261
- U.S. District Court · District of Minnesota
- 7
In Matzke v. City of Norwood Young America, Judge Doty granted in part and denied in part the City's motion for summary judgment, letting property-taking and tort claims proceed while dismissing the First Amendment retaliation claim.
Property owners who believe a local government damaged or took their property during a public works project, and anyone who has sent a formal demand to a local government and then faced stepped-up code enforcement, may find this case relevant. It also illustrates when disputed facts about easements or property boundaries can prevent a court from resolving a case before trial.
What happened
In Matzke v. City of Norwood Young America, Milford Matzke Jr. and Brenda Matzke sued the City of Norwood Young America and City Administrator Andrea Aukrust after the City removed trees, a sidewalk, and a concrete wall from what the Matzkes say was their property during a 2022 street and utility reconstruction project. The Matzkes claim they are entitled to compensation under the federal and Minnesota constitutions, and also brought claims for trespass, conversion, promissory estoppel, and retaliation against them for exercising their free speech rights.
The core dispute over the property-taking and related state law claims turns on whether the City had a legal right-of-way easement allowing it to do the work. The original 1857 property plat and a 1927 recopy are described by the court as nearly impossible to read, and other relevant facts are also in dispute — so the court could not resolve those claims without a trial. On the retaliation claim, however, the court found the evidence showed the City had been citing the Matzkes for code violations long before they sent a demand letter in February 2023, that other residents faced similar enforcement, and that the City's increased enforcement starting in 2021 was a general policy decision — not a response to anything the Matzkes said.
Judge David S. Doty granted in part and denied in part the City's motion for summary judgment. The First Amendment retaliation claim was resolved in the City's favor, while the taking and state law tort claims survive and will proceed further in the case.
The detailed version
- Milford Matzke Jr. and Brenda Matzke v. City of Norwood Young America and… · No. 0:24-cv-02261
- David Doty
- June 16, 2026
Background
Plaintiffs Milford Matzke Jr. and Brenda Matzke purchased their property in 1996, with title traced to a plat drafted in 1857 and recopied by Carver County in 1927. During a 2022 street and utility reconstruction project, the City of Norwood Young America removed a row of trees, a sidewalk, and a concrete wall on what the Matzkes contend is their property. The City maintains the work was performed within a public right-of-way easement and therefore required no compensation.
The Matzkes have a history of code-violation citations from the City dating back to 2001, covering issues such as refuse accumulation, a vehicle kept under a tarp in the front yard, weed and dead tree piling, and grass exceeding six inches. The City did not fine the Matzkes or take further action on those earlier citations. Beginning in late 2021 — coinciding with the December 2021 hiring of City Administrator Andrea Aukrust and a code enforcement officer in 2022 — the City made code enforcement a policy priority. Between August 2022 and September 2024, the Matzkes received numerous additional code-violation letters. Mr. Matzke testified he did not comply with mowing and trimming notices because he believed those obligations had shifted to the City given its easement position.
On May 10, 2024, the Matzkes filed suit in Carver County District Court. The City removed the case to federal court. The complaint asserts: (1) a governmental taking under the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution; (2) a taking under the Minnesota Constitution; (3) trespass; (4) conversion; (5) promissory estoppel under Minnesota law; and (6) First Amendment retaliation under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (the federal civil-rights statute allowing suits against state and local officials acting under color of state law). The City moved for summary judgment on all claims.
Legal Standard
Summary judgment is appropriate when there is no genuine dispute of material fact and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a). The court views all evidence and inferences in the light most favorable to the non-moving party. A dispute is genuine if the evidence could lead a reasonable jury to return a verdict for either side.
Rulings
Takings and State Law Tort Claims (Denied)
The court denied summary judgment on the federal and state constitutional taking claims, as well as the trespass, conversion, and promissory estoppel claims. The court found these all turn on whether the City held a right-of-way easement permitting it to perform the reconstruction work on the Matzkes' property. The 1857 plat and the 1927 recopy are described as "nearly impossible to read and construe," and the court concluded the location of any easement cannot be determined without resolving disputed facts. Because the other evidence on these claims is also disputed, summary judgment was inappropriate.
First Amendment Retaliation Claim (Granted)
The Matzkes alleged the City retaliated against them for protected speech — specifically, a February 15, 2023 demand letter seeking compensation for the Project — by escalating code enforcement against them afterward. Under Eighth Circuit precedent (Osborne v. Grussing, 477 F.3d 1002 (8th Cir. 2007)), a First Amendment retaliation plaintiff must show they were singled out for government action that similarly situated people did not face, and that the selection was based on the plaintiff's exercise of free speech.
The court granted summary judgment for the City on this claim for three reasons: (1) the Matzkes had been subject to City code enforcement long before the February 2023 letter; (2) the record showed other City residents faced similar enforcement for comparable violations; and (3) the City's increased enforcement was a general policy decision made in late 2021, not a response to anything the Matzkes said or did. The court concluded that no reasonable juror could find in the Matzkes' favor on this claim.
Disposition
Judge Doty granted in part and denied in part the City's motion for summary judgment [ECF No. 22]. The First Amendment retaliation claim is resolved in the City's favor. The taking claims under federal and state constitutions and the state law tort claims (trespass, conversion, and promissory estoppel) remain pending.
Read the full 7-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.