Board of Educ. of Logan City School Dist. v. Croft
| Decision Date | 31 July 1962 |
| Docket Number | No. 9629,9629 |
| Citation | 373 P.2d 697,13 Utah 2d 310 |
| Parties | d 310 BOARD OF EDUCATION OF LOGAN CITY SCHOOL DISTRICT, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. Jack CROFT and Lucille B. Croft, husband and wife, Defendants and Respondents. |
| Court | Utah Supreme Court |
Olson & Calderwood, Logan, for appellant.
George D. Preston, George W. Preston, Logan, for respondents.
Plaintiff Logan City Board of Education appeals from a jury award to defendants Croft for a 1.24-acre tract of land taken for use as part of a junior high school grounds, and damages to the remaining property, though no part thereof was taken, by the construction of the proposed improvements.
The school buildings occupy the central part of a 26-acre tract of land on the west side of Second East Street, and between Eighth and Tenth North Streets, in Logan. The Croft home tract is the north of three adjoining lots immediately north of Eighth North Street and west of Second East Street. The school grounds adjoins the Croft home tract on the north side and west end, and the west side of Second East Street from the north side of the Croft home tract to Tenth North Street. The south end of the school buildings is 120 feet north from the north boundary of the Croft tract. West of the Croft home tract is a school parking lot, which opens on Eighth North Street and occupies about a third of the tract taken from the Crofts, and the school grounds occupies the ground for a substantial distance to the west of the tract taken from the Crofts.
Following is a map of the school grounds and the Croft home tract and the other tracts to the south, together with the other property taken:
NOTE: OPINION CONTAINS TABLE OR OTHER DATA THAT IS NOT VIEWABLE
The parcel marked 'A' is the rear end of the Croft property taken by the School Board. Parcel 'B' is where the school buildings are located and parcel 'C' is a tract south and west of Croft's remaining home tract. The school grounds on which there are no buildings consisting of parking lots, driveways and boys' and girls' areas is quite extensive.
In answer to special interrogatories the jury awarded $8,750 as the value of the property taken from the Crofts, and $204 as severance damages to the property not taken. Also the jury awarded $4,000 damages to the remaining land under Section 78-34-10(3) by the construction and maintenance of the school on land not taken from the Crofts.
Two problems are presented: 1) Was there a prima facie showing that the Crofts suffered compensable damages to their home tract, though no part thereof was taken by the construction of this school? 2) Was it prejudicial error to receive the overlay map showing a proposed residential subdivision of the Crofts' and other property together with testimony of the highest and best use of this property? We consider these problems in the order stated.
The award of $4,000 damages to the Crofts' home tract, though no part thereof was taken, was error. This award was based on Section 78-34-10(3) U.C.A.1953, our eminent domain statute, and Article I, Section 22 of our Constitution.
Section 78-34-10, U.C.A.1953 on eminent domain provides:
'Compensation and damages--How assessed.--The court, jury or referee must hear such legal evidence as may be offered by any of the parties to the proceedings, and thereupon must ascertain and asses:
'(1) The value of the property sought to be condemned and all improvements thereon appertaining to the realty, and of each and every separate estate or interest therein; and if it consists of different parcels, the value of each parcel and of each estate or interest therein shall be separately assessed.
'(2) If the property sought to be condemned constitutes only a part of a larger parcel, the damages which will accrue to the portion not sought to be condemned by reason of its severance from the portion sought to be condemned and the construction of the improvement in the manner proposed by the plaintiff.
'(3) If the property, though no part thereof is taken, will be damaged by the construction of the proposed improvement, the amount of such damages. * * *'
...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Colman v. Utah State Land Bd.
...for the purpose of article I, section 22 and for the purpose of the eminent domain statute in Board of Education of Logan City School District v. Croft, 13 Utah 2d 310, 373 P.2d 697 (1962). In that case, the Court cited article I, section 22 and Damages to land, by the construction of a pub......
-
Farmers New World Life Ins. Co. v. Bountiful City
...allegedly caused by a loss of lateral support and the seepage of water through spaces in the wall panels. In Board of Education v. Croft, 13 Utah 2d 310, 373 P.2d 697 (1962), this court struck down a property owner's damage award, holding that an owner is entitled to compensation only for i......
-
Sheridan Drive-In Theatre, Inc. v. State
...running surface waters onto adjacent lands, or depositing foreign materials on neighboring lands. Board of Education of Logan City School District v. Croft, 13 Utah 2d 310, 373 P.2d 697, 699; see also Schuler v. Wilson, 322 Ill. 503, 153 N.E. 737, 740, 48 A.L.R. 1027; and Richert v. Board o......
-
State By and Through Road Commission v. Tanner, 12688
...District v. Ward, 10 Utah 2d 29, 347 P.2d 862; as to adversely affecting waters on the property see statement in Bd. of Education, etc. v. Croft, 13 Utah 2d 310, 373 P.2d 697, and authorities therein cited.5 Crescent Mining Co. v. Silver King Mining Co., 17 Utah 444, 54 P. 244; State Highwa......