DULUTH — The Minnesota Court of Appeals has declined to intervene in the latest legal challenge stemming from the yearslong battle over the downtown building that long housed the Kozy Bar and Apartments.
The court last week rejected a petition filed earlier in February by Pastoret Terrace's former owner, Eric Ringsred, and a group known as Respect Starts Here. The plaintiffs essentially were asking the appeals court to reverse a security bond that had been ordered by a district court judge and force the building's current owner, the Duluth Economic Development Authority, to start shoring up the historic, but heavily damaged structure.
Ringsred and fellow preservationists sued in 2018 in an effort to prevent demolition of the 1887 Oliver Traphagen-designed building, which has been ravaged by a series of fires dating back to 2010. Ringsred, lacking fire insurance, lost ownership of the building to tax forfeiture.
The Court of Appeals previously overturned a district court ruling that the building could come down, ordering in August 2020 that DEDA "perform all maintenance and repairs necessary to prevent the property's further deterioration" pending further court proceedings.
Judge Eric Hylden subsequently ordered the agency to erect an exterior-bracing system to prevent an outward collapse of the building's facade at First Street and Second Avenue East. But, after a second appeal, he made it contingent upon the plaintiffs posting $140,229 bond, allowing DEDA to receive reimbursement should it ultimately prevail in the lawsuit.
ADVERTISEMENT
Ringsred and company argued the bond violated the previous appellate order, saying the district court and city should be ordered to "strictly follow the remand instructions" and perform maintenance. A city attorney, in response, called the petition an "improper appeal" and said "there is no failure to perform any duty clearly imposed by law."
In a four-page order denying the petition, Court of Appeals Chief Judge Susan Segal noted that a three-judge panel previously addressed the bond issue, determining it was a matter for the district court's discretion. She added that the preservationists "identify no legal authority supporting their position that security is prohibited."
"Petitioners have not established that the district court failed to perform a duty clearly required by law to compel maintenance and repair efforts without security," Segal wrote.
With another major fire striking the building in November 2020, Hylden recently ordered new expert reports and set a July evidentiary hearing to supplement the record of an April 2019 trial — making a fall decision likely on DEDA's latest bid to secure permission to move forward with demolition.
