Lifetime Citizen Portal Access — AI Briefings, Alerts & Unlimited Follows
Appellate panel hears dispute over Granite Falls right-of-way and timeliness of Buchholz appeal
Loading...
Summary
An appellate panel heard oral arguments in City of Granite Falls v. Buchholz over a long-closed road remnant, focusing on whether the appellant’s notice of appeal was timely and whether the trial court erred in denying a continuance and in quieting title to the right of way.
An appellate panel heard arguments in City of Granite Falls v. Buchholz over a disputed road remnant and whether the appellant’s appeal was filed within the proper deadline.
Attorney Austin Hatcher, representing appellant Sarah Buchholz, told the court that “this case arises from the City's attempt to quiet title to a road remnant that has not been open to the public since 1984” and said the trial court committed “three core legal errors,” beginning with a denial of a continuance that he described as raising due-process concerns.
The city’s attorney, Emily Gilner, countered that the appeal was untimely and that the record contained no evidence of extraordinary circumstances that would excuse delay. “This trial was originally set for 2022. We didn't actually go to trial until 2024,” Gilner said, adding that findings of fact were entered Dec. 20 and the motion for reconsideration came later, arguing those events mean the petition was not filed within the statutory window.
Why it matters: The dispute turns on two linked questions: whether an April order related to recording a legal description and a requested survey constituted a final decision that triggered the 30-day appeal period, and whether the trial court’s handling of a late continuance request and subsequent survey work moved the case off purely ministerial matters into appealable merits.
What the lawyers said: Hatcher argued Ms. Buchholz had been represented for years and suddenly faced trial pro se after counsel withdrew; he maintained the court could and should consider an oral motion to continue made on the first day of trial, especially given what he described as due-process concerns for a litigant who recently became self‑represented. The panel pressed whether unnoted or late filings provided adequate notice and whether the record showed that Ms. Buchholz could not have obtained counsel during the months after her earlier attorneys withdrew.
Gilner told the court the city had used a surveyor familiar to the case and that the dispute centered in part on an historical difference between an 1892 petition describing a 40‑foot right of way and later county records showing a 50‑foot county road. She said the city accommodated on-the-ground conditions (including a house and deck that encroached on the wider measurement) and that utilities have been in the corridor since about 1994. The city also noted the appellant had in prior years sought a vacation but did not follow the statutory vacation process required to relinquish a public right of way.
Key legal points raised: Counsel debated whether the April 8 order (which authorized recording a legal description and ordering a survey) was a final judgment for purposes of appeal, or instead left discrete ministerial tasks (surveys, fee calculations, recording) that do not reopen core merits. Hatcher argued the court’s equitable adjustments to the right of way and its consideration of the survey implicated merits issues; the panel suggested some follow-up tasks can be ministerial and appealed separately.
Next steps: After oral argument the court recessed. The panel did not issue a ruling during the hearing; the court will take the matter under advisement and issue an opinion or order later.
Sources: oral arguments by Austin Hatcher for appellant Sarah Buchholz and Emily Gilner for the City of Granite Falls, as recorded in the court proceedings.
