This spring, my wife and I bought a lake home near Brainerd, Minnesota. The property is actually inside a very small city (less than 150 residents).

When we bought the home, we were told that the actual lake front property was owned by the city, not the nearby homeowner, which was a transaction that occurred more than 40 years ago when the city decided to put in a short road in between three houses and the lake. We were told (and this was confirmed by our mortgage company and an independent appraiser) that we would have complete access to the lake front, which has been the case for this entire year. Specifically, the city property was something like an easement on every property where the property owner didn't technically own the land so that utilities could be run etc. As proof of this unspoken agreement, we were shown that the real estate taxes as assessed by the county assume that we (i.e. not the city) own the lake front.

Now, the city council (or at least one member of the city council) is trying to make sure that we no longer use "city property". This would drastically affect the value of the property and also make it into something that we didn't want in the first place (i.e. we wanted a lake home).

My questions is: do I have any sort of case here?

The size of the property between the road and the lake is very small, perhaps 100 ft (lakeshore) by 50 ft. Also, I have a copy of the city council minutes from December 2009 when the county tax auditor visited the city council and told them that the property should be given back to the homeowners.

For what it is worth, the other side of my property also borders "city property", where they now want to install a fence to protect a city well. Apparently, their original plans call for them to place the fence on my property (there's something about a need for a 200 foot radius around the well)... so there may be some room for negotiation anyway.

...
When we bought the home, we were told that the actual lake front property was owned by the city,
...
We were told (and this was confirmed by our mortgage company and an independent appraiser) that we would have complete access to the lake front, which has been the case for this entire year. Specifically, the city property was something like an easement on every property where the property owner didn't technically own the land so that utilities could be run etc.
...

You are saying several contradictory things here:


The lake-front is "owned by" the city.
The city has an easement along the lake.
An easement works like this: the property owner owns the "fee simple", which is subject to an easement. So you would, "technically", own it, subject to the city's easement (=right to run utilities, etc.).

One thing you seem to be suggesting is that the easement is implied or otherwise unwritten. Does the city have anything in writing establishing the easement? Did this easement show up in your title report (You did get tite insurance, didn't you?)? In other words, why are you saying that different people told you who owns what? If you did get a title report, that's what you would go on, not what they "told" you.

In answer to your question, if indeed the city merely has a utility easement, it is doubtful that the council can stop you from enjoying your property access unless that enjoyment somehow interferes with the city's ability to maintain the utilities for which the easement was established.

Agreed, an easement and owning are two different things, I have property where the city or electric company has a easment but I own the property and only they can come on the property for their business, no one else can,

If that is the case, then the real owner ,who ever that is, can restrict who goes on it.

If the city owns it, and were allowing free access, they may change that rule at any time by the vote of the city council.

Unless your deed gives you specific access to the lake, then no you don't have a right other than what the owner may give you.

Just because the city owns it, does not mean they can't restrict its use

As proof of this unspoken agreement, we were shown that the real estate taxes as assessed by the county assume that we (i.e., not the city) own the lake front..Hello f:

In real estate matters, there are NO unspoken agreements. If it's NOT on paper, it doesn't exist. Hire a lawyer.

excon