## Facts

- In April 1996, water levels rose in an abandoned gravel pit near Maureen and William Tomczak’s home in Koochiching County, Minnesota.
- The gravel pit was not owned or operated by Koochiching County, but Maureen Tomczak reported the issue to a county commissioner and then attended a county board meeting.
- Multiple residents near the pit complained at the meeting. The county board initially stated that the effects of the rising water were the private landowners’ responsibility.
- Douglas Grindall, the county engineer, believed that pumping the pit and lowering the water level by about two feet might address the problem.
- The county board eventually authorized the Koochiching County Highway Department to furnish a pump at county expense.
- Maureen Tomczak stated that she and her husband would provide a site for the pump and would keep it supplied with fuel and oil.
- Before placing the pump, Grindall obtained the Tomczaks’ signatures on a short typewritten release stating, in substance, that “in exchange for” the county furnishing a pump to dewater the pit, the Tomczaks would fuel and check the oil and would waive county liability for damages or injury caused by pumping.
- The county installed a pump, but it did not perform as expected. The county then installed a second pump.
- Pumping led to flooding complaints from neighboring properties, and concern about water levels continued.
- In early June 1996, the county stopped pumping.
- A few weeks later, the Tomczaks’ house flooded.
- The Tomczaks sued the highway department, claiming their signed release and related communications formed a contract requiring the county to pump (including an alleged promise to pump the pit down “to two feet” or “to keep it safe”) and that stopping constituted breach.
- The district court granted partial summary judgment dismissing the breach-of-contract claim and also imposed sanctions relating to the Tomczaks’ motions.
- The Tomczaks appealed the contract dismissal and the sanctions order.

## Issues

1. Did the written release and the Tomczaks’ promises (to site, fuel, and oil the pump and to waive liability) supply consideration for an enforceable contract obligating the county to continue pumping?
2. Did the district court abuse its discretion by imposing sanctions against the Tomczaks in connection with their motions?

## Decision

- The Minnesota Court of Appeals affirmed the partial summary judgment dismissing the Tomczaks’ breach-of-contract claim.
- The court held that the county’s furnishing of a pump was a gratuitous undertaking conditioned on the Tomczaks’ actions and liability waiver, not a bargained-for exchange creating an enforceable contract.
- The court affirmed the sanctions order, concluding the district court acted within its discretion.

## Legal Principles

- A contract requires consideration: a bargained-for exchange in which a promise or performance is sought by the promisor in exchange for the promisor’s promise.
- A conditional gift (a gratuitous promise conditioned on the recipient doing something to receive the benefit) is not enforceable when the condition is not the price of the promise but merely a prerequisite or limitation attached to the giver’s voluntary act.
- A recipient’s agreement to perform tasks incidental to receiving a gratuitous benefit (such as fueling and checking oil on equipment supplied as a favor) generally does not transform the arrangement into an enforceable contract.
- A release of liability demanded as part of a gratuitous undertaking may function as a condition of providing the assistance rather than consideration for a contractual commitment to continue the assistance.
- Sanctions decisions are reviewed for abuse of discretion; an appellate court will affirm if the record supports the district court’s determination that sanctions were warranted.

## Conclusion

The court of appeals held that the county’s decision to provide a pump to dewater an abandoned gravel pit, conditioned on the Tomczaks’ maintenance obligations and a liability waiver, was a conditional gift lacking consideration and therefore did not create an enforceable contract to continue pumping; it also affirmed the district court’s sanctions order.


Tomczak v. Koochiching County Highway Department, 1999 Minn. App. LEXIS 138 (Feb. 9, 1999)