HomeMy WebLinkAbout05(D) - Resolution Authorizing a Settlement Agreement in the Case of Prior Lake vs. Prettyman Report233082v13
SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT
THIS SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT (the “Agreement”) is entered into this _____ day
of _____, 2024, by and between the CITY OF PRIOR LAKE a Minnesota municipal corporation
(“City”), and MATHEW PRETTYMAN AND BARBARA PRETTYMAN, (“Prettymans”)
property owners. The City and Prettymans are hereinafter referred to collectively as the “Parties”.
RECITALS
1. On July 12, 2022, City of Prior Lake commenced legal action, City of Prior Lake v. Mathew
Prettyman and Barbara Prettyman, 70-CV-22-8554, for alleged violations of City Code with
respect to grading and construction to build a walk-out basement on the Property at 14278 Bluebird
Trail NE, Prior Lake, Minnesota (“Subject Property”) (the “Lawsuit”).
2. The Prettymans brought several counterclaims against the City, including negligence,
arising out of the City’s actions in permitting related to the project at the Subject Property.
3. On March 13, 2023, the Court dismissed all of the Prettymans’ claims except the
negligence claim.
4. After extensive discovery and motion practice, the District Court entered an Order
Regarding Motion for Summary Judgment on September 10, 2024 (“Order”).
5. The Order provided in relevant part that the Prettymans must remedy certain City Code
violations within 30 days of the Order and restore the Subject Property to its previous condition
consistent with the approved Grading Certification Plan.
6.The Order preserved the Prettymans’ negligence claim against the City for trial.
7.The Parties desire to conclusively resolve all of their differences by mutual agreement.
NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual covenants herein, the Parties agree
as follows:
1. Consideration
a.The Parties will jointly apply to the Court for entry of a new order that modifies the
timeline to remedy the violations to May 15, 2025, amending the order nun pro
tunc, as shown on the attached Exhibit A (“Stipulation for Amended Order”). All
other provisions of the original Order will remain in place and be enforceable
against the Prettymans for non-compliance. The City retains the right to move to
enforce the Amended Order if the Prettymans do not meet the new deadline for
compliance or restore the Property, including construction of two window wells, as
permitted by the City and as shown on Exhibit B, attached hereto.
233082v13
b.The City and/or its insurer shall pay the Prettymans $15,000.00 to support their
work to restore the Property within 20 days of execution of this Agreement.
c.The Prettymans agree to restore the Property consistent with the Amended Order
and City Code and building requirements, including the construction of two egress
window wells, as shown on the attached Exhibit B (“Restoration”). The City retains
all rights to ensure compliance with local and state building regulations and the
City’s own permitting process.
d.The City shall waive all permit fees for the Restoration. The City does not waive
the requirements for the Prettymans or their contractors to apply for and obtain all
applicable permits which may require additional supporting documents including
engineering or surveying reports. The Prettymans will provide an engineer-
executed plan for the Restoration. All costs related to the restoration are solely the
responsibility of the Prettymans.
2.Release of Claims. In consideration and upon completion of the foregoing consideration
in Section 1, the Parties hereby unconditionally mutually release and forever discharge each other,
and each other’s past and present respective owners, members, employees, insurers, agents, elected
officials, staff, successors and assigns from any and all Claims that were made, or could have been
made, arising from the Lawsuit. The Release contemplated herein does not release the Parties from
any obligations they have under this Agreement, the Court’s Order (while in force) or subsequent
Amended Order. The City retains all rights it has under the Court’s Order (while in force) or
subsequent Amended Order.
3. Contingent Vacation of Permanent Injunction. The above section 2 notwithstanding, on
or after June 15, 2025, and upon final inspection and approval by the City finding that all work to
bring the Property into compliance with the Amended Order is satisfactorily complete, the
parties shall file a stipulation to vacate the permanent injunction under the Amended Order and
the City will file a satisfaction of the judgment.
4.Attorney Fees. The Parties shall each bear their own attorney fees and costs, and the
Released Claims include all claims by and between the Parties to recover attorney fees or costs
incurred in this action.
5.Filing Stipulations. The Parties agree that they shall direct their respective attorneys to
promptly file a stipulation requesting an Amended Order and requesting dismissal with prejudice
following receipt of Payments called for in this Agreement. The Parties agree that such Stipulation
will expressly contemplate that the Amended Order remains in force.
6.Governing Law; Venue. This Agreement shall be governed and enforced in accordance
with the laws of the State of Minnesota.
7. Construction. The Parties agree that any rule of interpretation or construction to the effect
that ambiguities are to be resolved against the drafting party shall not be employed in the
construction or enforcement of this Agreement.
233082v13
8.Entire Agreement. The Parties understand and agree that this document contains the entire
agreement between the Parties with respect to the Released Claims, and that the terms of this
Agreement are contractual and not a mere recital. By their signatures below, the undersigned each
represent that they have carefully read this document, know and understand the terms and effect
hereof, have fully discussed the terms and effect of this document with their attorneys, have
authority to enter into this Agreement, and have signed this Agreement as a free and considered
act. The parties each acknowledge that the terms and conditions and releases set forth in all pages
are a material part of this Agreement are accepted in return for the consideration set out in the
confidential exhibits.
9.No Admission of Liability. The parties recognize and agree that this Agreement is the
compromise of disputed claims and that the consideration accepted and paid hereunder is not
intended nor shall it be construed by anyone to be an admission of liability by or on behalf of any
of the parties, by whom all such liability is expressly denied, said parties intending by this
settlement merely to avoid litigation and buy their peace.
10.Successors and Assigns. This Agreement shall inure to and bind the parties hereof and
their respective heirs, legal representatives, successors and assigns.
11.Advice of Counsel. In entering this Agreement and Release, the Parties represent that they
have relied upon the advice of their attorney, who is the attorney of their own choice, concerning
the legal consequences of this Agreement; and that the terms of this Agreement are fully
understood and voluntarily accepted by the Parties.
12.Execution in Counterparts. This Agreement may be executed and delivered in two or more
counterparts, each of which, when so delivered, shall be an original; but such counterparts shall
together constitute but one and the same instrument and agreement.
13.Enforcement. Releases do not apply to claims regarding enforcement of this Agreement
and the prevailing party in any such dispute shall be entitled to recover attorneys’ fees and costs
incurred to enforce this Agreement.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Parties have duly executed this Agreement.
CITY OF PRIOR LAKE MATHEW & BARBARA PRETTYMAN
By: __________________________ By: __________________________
Kirt Briggs, Mayor Mathew Prettyman
/# 2- //4E )җ*NуѶспсурфѷффҘ
Mathew Prettyman
233082v13
By: __________________________ By: _________________________
Jason Wedel, City Manager Barbara Prettyman
Date: _________________________ Date:
Barbara Prettyman (Nov 4, 2024 17:10 CST)
Barbara Prettyman
233082v13
EXHIBIT A
233106v5
STATE OF MINNESOTA
COUNTY OF SCOTT
DISTRICT COURT
FIRST JUDICIAL DISTRICT
Case Type: Other Civil
______________________________________________________________________________
City of Prior Lake, a Minnesota municipal
corporation,
Plaintiff,
vs.
Matthew Prettyman and Barbara Prettyman,
Defendants.
Case File No.: 70-CV-22-8554
JOINT STIPULATION FOR AMENDED
ORDER REGARDING SUMMARY
JUDGMENT
______________________________________________________________________________
WHEREAS, On September 10, 2024, the Court entered an Order Regarding Motion for
Summary Judgment (“Order”), which granted the City’s motion for summary judgments on Counts
I-V in the City’s Complaint and denied the City’s motion as to Defendants’/Counter-claimants’
sole remaining negligence counter claim;
WHEREAS, the parties subsequently engaged in settlement negotiation and executed a
Settlement Agreement dated November 12, 2024;
WHEREAS, the Settlement Agreement contemplated that the Parties would approach the
Court to seek a revision of the Court’s Order as to time for compliance;
WHEREAS, the Parties agree that the deadline for compliance should be extended to May
15, 2025, entered nunc pro tunc; and
WHEREAS, all other provision of the Order, including the Court’s reasoning should
remain in place.
233106v5
NOW, THEREFORE, for the sake of clarity, the Parties request that the Court enter into
a Revised Order, entered nunc pro tunc, in relevant part, as follows:
1. The City’s motion for summary judgment on Counts I-V in the City’s Complaint is
GRANTED.
a. Defendants are in violation of Prior Lake City Code §§ 104.200(1), 104.200(6),
401.500, 706.502, 706.511, 706.700, and 1140.12.
b. Defendants are permanently enjoined from violating Prior Lake City Code §§
401.500, 104.200(1), 104.200(6,) 1140.12, 706.502, 706.511, and 706.700.
c. Defendants must remedy the above violations of Prior Lake City Code by May
15, 2025 and restore the Property at 14278 Bluebird Road NE to its previous
condition consistent with the approved Grading Certification Plan.
d. After May 15, 2025, if the Property remains in violation of the Order, the City
may enter onto the Property and bring it into compliance. The City may assess
the costs of abatement of the violation pursuant to Minn. Stat. § 429.101, subd.
1(3). The City may also approach the Court to aid enforcement of its Order.
e. The City may record a notice against the Property that the Property does not
comply with City Code with respect to the Project including the excavation,
grading, and cuts made into the foundation.
CAMPBELL KNUTSON
Professional Association
Dated: ___________, 2024 By /s/ Jared D. Shepherd
Jared D. Shepherd (#0389521)
Leah C.M. Koch (#0400146)
Grand Oak Office Center I
860 Blue Gentian Road, Suite 290
Eagan, MN 55121
Telephone: (651) 234-6218
jshepherd@ck-law.com
lkoch@ck-law.com
Attorneys for Plaintiff City of Prior Lake
233106v5
PERRY & PERRY, PLLP
Dated: ___________, 2024 By: /s/Shawn M. Perry
Shawn M. Perry (#185000)
PERRY & PERRY, PLLP
950 Wayzata Blvd. E., Suite 103
Wayzata, MN 55391
Telephone: (952) 546-3845
shawn.perry@pppllp.com
Attorney for Defendants
233082v13
EXHIBIT B