This opinion is nonprecedential except as provided by
                         Minn. R. Civ. App. P. 136.01, subd. 1(c).

                               STATE OF MINNESOTA
                               IN COURT OF APPEALS
                                     A23-1012

                                    Vernon G. Muggli,
                                        Appellant,

                                            vs.

                                    Leiding Township,
                                       Respondent,

                                 Kenneth Brokaw, et al.,
                                     Defendants.

                                Filed February 26, 2024
                                       Affirmed
                                      Ross, Judge

                              St. Louis County District Court
                                 File No. 69VI-CV-22-487

Blake D. Lubinus, Ed Shaw Law, Brainerd, Minnesota (for appellant)

Jason J. Kuboushek, Andrew A. Wolf, Iverson Reuvers, Bloomington, Minnesota (for
respondent)

         Considered and decided by Schmidt, Presiding Judge; Ross, Judge; and Gaïtas,

Judge.

                           NONPRECEDENTIAL OPINION

ROSS, Judge

         Kenneth Brokaw and Theodore Brokaw own a landlocked rural parcel that borders

appellant Vernon Muggli’s parcel, which abuts a public road. Respondent Leiding

Township granted the Brokaws’ petition to establish a cartway across Muggli’s land based
on Minnesota Statutes section 164.08 (2022), to give the Brokaws’ parcel access to the

road. Muggli sued the township to challenge its cartway decision, and the district court

granted summary judgment, affirming the cartway decision. Muggli argues on appeal that

the township was not authorized by law to establish the cartway because the Brokaw lot

already had public-road access by an easement and that the township’s decision to reject

Muggli’s alternate route was arbitrary and capricious and contrary to the public’s interest.

Because Muggli failed to make his existing-easement argument to the township and

because the township’s decision to grant the proposed cartway route is supported by the

record, we affirm.

                                         FACTS

       Kenneth Brokaw and Theodore Brokaw own a 9.72-acre undeveloped lot in Leiding

Township. This lot sits just north of another 6.7-acre lot that Kenneth Brokaw owns. For

the purpose of this opinion, we refer to these two Brokaw parcels together as a single lot.

The Brokaw lot does not abut or have immediate access to a public roadway. It sits

immediately south of Vernon Muggli’s lot, which abuts and accesses Slade Road.

       The Brokaws petitioned Leiding Township under Minnesota Statutes section

164.08, subdivision 2, to establish a cartway across Muggli’s property to allow their parcel

to access Slade Road. The town board held a hearing on the petition, first inspecting the

proposed cartway route and Muggli’s suggested alternative route and then returning to the

town hall to discuss the petition. The Muggli family attended the inspection and hearing,

along with a representative. Muggli opposed the cartway petition. His representative

contended that the Brokaw family parcel is not landlocked because they can put a road on


                                             2
state DNR land. The representative also argued that the board could not say there was a

wetlands issue without an environmental survey, and that the cartway would damage the

Muggli property by dividing it and making it more difficult to build on.

       The town board members voted unanimously to grant the proposed cartway and to

award the Mugglis $792 in damages. The board memorialized its cartway decision by

resolution:

              That the Town Board finds that there is not a route from a
              public road to Petitioners’ property that is less damaging or less
              disruptive to the property ownership of others than the route
              proposed by Petitioners . . . . In fact, the proposed cartway route
              follows the route Petitioners have used for many years to
              access their property, so there is a cleared driving surface on
              the cartway route. The alternate route proposed by the affected
              landowner crosses low lying terrain that appears to be wetlands
              and would not be a feasible access or consistent with the
              public’s best interest.

       Muggli filed a civil complaint in district court to challenge the township’s decision.

The township successfully moved the district court to grant summary judgment affirming

the cartway decision. Muggli appeals.

                                        DECISION

       Muggli challenges the district court’s summary-judgment decision. We review de

novo the district court’s grant of summary judgment, determining whether any genuine

issues of material fact prevent judgment as a matter of law. Montemayor v. Sebright Prods.,

Inc., 

 (Minn. 2017); see Minn. R. Civ. P. 56.01. A town board’s

decision to grant or deny a cartway petition is a legislative action that will withstand

judicial review unless the record evidence clearly contradicts the decision, the board



                                              3
applied an erroneous theory of law, or the board’s decision was arbitrary and capricious

and contrary to the public’s best interest. Horton v. Township of Helen, 

 (Minn. App. 2001), rev. denied (Minn. June 19, 2001). Our de novo review leads us to

affirm the district court’s summary-judgment order affirming the township’s cartway

decision.

       Muggli raises two issues in his challenge on appeal. He argues first that the township

improperly granted the cartway petition because the Brokaws had access to a public road

through an easement. He argues second that the district court erred by granting summary

judgment because the township acted arbitrarily, capriciously, and contrary to the public’s

best interest in granting the cartway petition. Neither argument is persuasive.

       Muggli unconvincingly contends that the township should have denied the cartway

petition because the Brokaw parcel already had access to a public road through an

easement. The controlling statute requires a town board to issue a resolution “establish[ing]

a cartway at least two rods wide connecting the petitioner’s land with a public road” if the

petitioning owner “has no access thereto except over a navigable waterway or over the

lands of others.” 

, subd. 2(a). Muggli asserts that, because an easement

elsewhere gave the Brokaw parcel access to the public road, the statute did not authorize

the township to establish a cartway across his land. See Roemer v. Bd. of Supervisors of

Elysian Twp., 

, 499–500 (Minn. 1969) (recognizing that a town board

cannot grant a cartway to a petitioner who has a legally enforceable easement or right-of-

passage to a public road). But we do not reach the merits of Muggli’s easement argument.

“When the municipal proceedings were fair and the record clear and complete, review is


                                             4
on the record.” Mendota Golf, LLP v. City of Mendota Heights, 

(Minn. 2006). Although Muggli raised the argument in the district court, he failed to raise

it before the town board. He offered no evidence of a potential easement elsewhere and

never even asserted that one existed. The district court correctly concluded that Muggli’s

argument was not properly before it.

       Muggli’s alternative argument is also unconvincing. He maintains that the township

acted arbitrarily and capriciously and not in the best interest of the public by failing to give

“due consideration to the alternative routes suggested.” According to the statute, “[t]he

town board may select an alternative route other than that petitioned for if the alternative

is deemed by the town board to be less disruptive and damaging to the affected landowners

and in the public’s best interest.” 

, subd. 2(a). We first observe that,

even if the board deemed an alternative route to be less disruptive and less damaging to the

affected landowner and in the public’s interest, the statute affords the board the discretion

whether to choose that route over the petitioner’s suggested route. 

 (“The town board

may select an alternative route . . . .” (emphasis added)); see also Kennedy v. Pepin Twp.,

 (Minn. 2010) (holding that a township must establish the requested

route unless the township finds that an alternative route is less disruptive and damaging to

neighbors and the alternative route is in the public’s best interest). The record informs us

that the town board inspected the parcels and considered the petitioned-for cartway route

and Muggli’s suggested alternative route. The board reasonably concluded that the

petitioned-for route was less disruptive and damaging because a well-worn road already

existed on the petitioned-for route, power lines requiring utility-company maintenance


                                               5
already ran along the existing road, and Muggli’s alternative route, by contrast, required

crossing a railroad track and “appears to be wetlands.” The board also found that the

Brokaws had already been using the petitioned-for route for many years before Muggli

roped off the road to bar their access.

       The town board’s decision is well supported by the record. We hold that it acted

within its discretion by choosing the petitioned-for route and denying Muggli’s proposed

alternative route. The district court correctly determined that the township’s decision was

not arbitrary, capricious, or against the public’s best interest.

       Affirmed.




                                               6