Bradley v. State, 39089

Citation73 Wn.2d 914,442 P.2d 1009
Decision Date29 May 1968
Docket NumberNo. 39089,39089
PartiesBen C. BRADLEY and Nola R. Bradley, his wife, Appellants, v. The STATE of Washington, Respondent.
CourtUnited States State Supreme Court of Washington

Moschetto & Alfieri, Michael R. Alfieri, Seattle, for appellants.

John J. O'Connell, Atty. Gen., Olympia, Robert E. Lundbaard, Asst. Atty. Gen., for respondent.

ROSELLINI, Judge.

This action was brought to recover the value of certain tavern equipment which it was alleged the state had appropriated without having compensated the plaintiffs. A judgment and decree of appropriation, entered in the Superior Court for King County on March 6, 1963, was introduced in evidence. This decree described the real property, by metes and bounds, on which the tavern in question was located, and recited that all persons having an interest in the 'lands, real estate, premises and other property described in the petition' had been served with notice of the proceeding. It also recited that the plaintiffs in this action were represented by counsel in that proceeding.

The trial court held that the plaintiffs' rights were determined in that action, and that the decree was res judicata. It appears that no appeal was taken from the decree.

The plaintiffs contend that the trial court applied the doctrine of res judicata to work an injustice, since they received no compensation for their property in the condemnation proceeding.

There is merit to their contention, inasmuch as the record shows that some of the items for which they claim the right to be paid were clearly personal property. Other items were attached to the realty and may have been fixtures. The trial court made no findings as to the nature of these items, apparently being of the opinion that all of them were covered by the decree in the condemnation action.

In this conclusion, the trial court erred. The decree makes no mention of personal property and describes only the real property which was condemned.

The question presented in whether the decree in the condemnation action necessarily determined the validity of the plaintiffs' claim. In other words, was that decree, which described only real property, broad enough to include fixtures and personal property?

While we have found no case on this subject in this jurisdiction, the general rule elsewhere is that damages are allowed in condemnation actions in respect of fixtures which have become a part of the realty. Numerous cases so holding are cited in an annotation in 90 A.L.R. 159, entitled 'Eminent Domain--Compensation for Fixtures.'

In 2 P. Nichols, Eminent Domain, § 5.83(2), at 332 (3d ed. 1950), it is said:

Even though a lease contains a condemnation clause the tenant's fixtures are considered real property and must be paid for in eminent domain. * * *

In 29A C.J.S. Eminent Domain § 175(1) (1965), the rule is stated Where land is condemned for public uses, the value of buildings or other improvements and fixtures on the land must be considered in determining the owner's compensation, to the extent that they enhance the value of the land to which they are affixed, the appropriator being required either to take the land with the improvements he finds thereon or to reject it in toto. (Footnotes omitted.)

A similar statement is found in 27 Am.Jur.2d Eminent Domain § 292, at 99 (1966). See also 32 A.L.R.2d 288, 'Eminent Domain--Lessees' Damages.'

All of these authorities are in accord that the lessee's personal property, not attached to the realty, is not included in the condemnation of the realty.

As we have observed earlier, there was no personal property described in the decree in condemnation. Consequently, that decree does not dispose of the plaintiffs' claim for compensation for those items which were in fact personalty.

The state concedes that it did take possession of these items and that it has not paid the plaintiffs for them. Also, it does not question the fact that they belonged to the plaintiffs at the time it took possession of them. For defense it relies upon the fact that, as shown by the stipulation of the parties and the findings of the court in this action, in making its offer to the owners and lessees in the condemnation proceeding, the...

To continue reading

Request your trial
11 cases
  • Reninger v. State Dept. of Corrections
    • United States
    • Washington Supreme Court
    • February 26, 1998
    ...estoppel has the burden to prove it. McDaniels v. Carlson, 108 Wash.2d 299, 303-04, 738 P.2d 254 (1987); Bradley v. State, 73 Wash.2d 914, 917, 442 P.2d 1009 (1968). Affirmative answers must be given to the following questions before collateral estoppel is (1) Was the issue decided in the p......
  • Metcalf, In re
    • United States
    • Washington Court of Appeals
    • August 31, 1998
    ...109, 119, 431 P.2d 961 (1967). and their privies. The party asserting these defenses bears the burden of proof. Bradley v. State, 73 Wash.2d 914, 916, 442 P.2d 1009 (1968). Here, that party is the State, which asserts that dismissal of the federal class action estops Collateral estoppel is ......
  • Barr v. Day, 11856-8-III
    • United States
    • Washington Court of Appeals
    • May 13, 1993
    ...has the burden of establishing the four factors. McDaniels v. Carlson, 108 Wash.2d 299, 303, 738 P.2d 254 (1987); Bradley v. State, 73 Wash.2d 914, 917, 442 P.2d 1009 (1968). Because we find the settlement hearing ended in a final judgment and that Mrs. Barr was a party to the earlier proce......
  • Schoeman v. New York Life Ins. Co.
    • United States
    • Washington Supreme Court
    • October 2, 1986
    ...the former action. That judgment, therefore, became res judicata of the issues and matters here presented." See also Bradley v. State, 73 Wn.2d 914, 442 P.2d 1009 (1968). If a matter has been litigated or there has been an opportunity to litigate on the matter in a former action, the party-......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT