City of Chisago City v. Holt, C5-84-813

• Citation: 360 N.W.2d 390
• Decision Date: 08 January 1985
• Docket Number: No. C5-84-813,C5-84-813
• Parties: In the Matter of The Condemnation by the CITY OF CHISAGO CITY of Certain Lands in the City of Chisago City, Appellant, v. Leroy G. HOLT and Jean C. Holt, Respondents.
• Court: Court of Appeals of Minnesota

Page 390

360 N.W.2d 390

In the Matter of The Condemnation by the CITY OF CHISAGO

CITY of Certain Lands in the City of Chisago City, Appellant, v. Leroy G. HOLT and Jean C. Holt, Respondents.

No. C5-84-813.

Court of Appeals of Minnesota.

Jan. 8, 1985.

Syllabus by the Court

1. In a condemnation action, the landowner is entitled to damages for loss of direct access to a highway even though indirect access is provided.

2. Since the trial court considered the existence of a new road with access and reduced the award, the cost of the assessment was properly added to the award.

Mark A. Karney, Roseville, for appellant.

Wellington Tully, Jr., Minneapolis, for respondents.

Heard, considered, and decided by LESLIE, P.J., and LANSING and WOZNIAK, JJ.

OPINION

WOZNIAK, Judge.

This is a condemnation action. The court awarded damages to respondents Holts in the amount of $121,557.53 for land taken by the appellant Chisago City. The City appeals from the denial of its motion for a new trial or, in the alternative, for amended findings of fact and conclusions of law. It alleges that the court improperly considered evidence bearing on value. The Holts seek review of the original judgment, alleging that they were entitled to greater damages. We affirm.

FACTS

The Holts own a parcel of land located in Chisago County, Minnesota, consisting of approximately twelve acres. The parcel lies in the northerly portion of Chisago City along State Highway Number 8. The south line of the property abuts the highway. Prior to the condemnation, there were three access points to the highway along the south line. In late 1981, appellant brought a condemnation proceeding pursuant to the "quick-take" provision of Minn.Stat. Sec. 117.042, and proceeded to take the access to Highway 8, .71 acres along the north side of the parcel, and a permanent easement approximately 10 X 200 feet south of and adjacent to the .71 acres. A hearing was held on January 8, 1982, at which time the City took the above lands.

As required by statute, three commissioners were appointed to hear the evidence and assess damages. The commissioners awarded the Holts damages in the amount of $53,106, plus an appraisal fee of $300. They also required the City to furnish three access points to a new detached service road built along the north side of the parcel serving Holts' property and other properties. The award was filed on July 1, 1982. Both the City and the Holts appealed from the award.

The case was tried before the court, without a jury, on August 29, 1983. Prior to trial, the City had provided a service road with three points of access to Holts' remaining land. The service road was set back one block (800 feet) from Highway 8. Direct access between Holts' land and Highway 8 was extinguished. The shortest route required travelling at least two and one-half blocks and making at least two turns.

Appraisers for both parties agreed that the land's highest use was commercial. The City's appraiser testified that the .71 acre taking resulted in a $6,455 loss to the Holts; he did not believe that the loss of direct access to Highway 8 damaged their remaining property. The Holts' two appraisers testified that the greatest damage was caused by an adverse change in quality of access. They valued the total damage, including both the .71 acre taking and the loss of direct access to the remaining property, at $89,270 and $105,000 respectively. In addition, the Holts testified that the taking required them to build a new gravel road to an existing building on their land at a cost of $5,000.

The trial court awarded the Holts the sum of $121,557.53. Of this total, the court determined $89,000 as damages using the standard "before and after market value" rule and deducted the special benefits of the new road. The court added $5,000 for the cost of a new gravel road to the building, and $27,557.53 for the cost of the new service road that the City had assessed against the Holts' property.

ISSUES

1. Was the court's award of damages for loss of value based on the evidence?

2. Did the court err by awarding the assessments levied against the Holts' property?

ANALYSIS

I.

Damages as a result of loss of direct access.

A. The City argues that the property sustained no damage as a result of loss of access to Highway No. 8 because its prime attraction was its visibility from Highway No. 8, which remained after the taking in spite of the resultant indirect and circuitous route.

The trial court rejected this theory as we do. Minnesota case law has long recognized that a landowner is entitled to compensation where his direct right of access is taken, even though other, but less satisfactory, means of access are made available. See, e.g., City of St. Louis Park v. The Almor Company, 313 N.W.2d 606 (Minn.1981); Johnson Brothers Grocery, Inc. v. State, Department of Highways, 304 Minn. 75, 229 N.W.2d 504 (1975), Hendrickson v. State, 267 Minn. 436, 127 N.W.2d 165 (1964).

The general rule for damages in a condemnation action is that the owner is entitled to the difference in market value immediately before the taking and the market value of the remaining tract after the taking, excluding from consideration general benefits and deducting special benefits. State by Lord v. Hayden Miller Company, 263 Minn. 29, 116 N.W.2d 535 (1962). This estimate of market value can be based upon the highest and best use to which the property can reasonably be put in the foreseeable future or for which the property is best suited even if that use is not the present use at the time of the condemnation proceeding. The highest and best use of the property in question is commercial development.

Any diminution in market value of the property caused by the substantial impairment of the right to reasonably convenient and suitable access to the...