Elliott v. City of Guthrie

• Citation: 725 P.2d 861,1986 OK 59
• Decision Date: 16 September 1986
• Docket Number: No. 61492,61492
• Parties: Marvin ELLIOTT and Allie Mae Elliott, husband and wife; Charles Elliott and Elona Elliott, husband and wife; Frances Padgham and Wilbur Padgham, wife and husband; and Clara Orr and Earl Orr, wife and husband, Appellants, v. The CITY OF GUTHRIE, a Municipal corporation, Appellee, and Dallas POTEET, Appellant, v. The CITY OF GUTHRIE, a Municipal corporation, Appellee.
• Court: Supreme Court of Oklahoma

Page 861

725 P.2d 861

1986 OK 59

Marvin ELLIOTT and Allie Mae Elliott, husband and wife;

Charles Elliott and Elona Elliott, husband and wife;

Frances Padgham and Wilbur Padgham, wife and husband; and Clara Orr and Earl Orr, wife and husband, Appellants, v. The CITY OF GUTHRIE, a Municipal corporation, Appellee, and Dallas POTEET, Appellant, v. The CITY OF GUTHRIE, a Municipal corporation, Appellee.

No. 61492.

Supreme Court of Oklahoma.

Sept. 16, 1986.

Paul Walters, Messrs. Spradling, Alpern, Friot & Gum, Oklahoma City, for appellants.

Richard Otto Burst, Sr., Guthrie, for appellee.

OPALA, Judge.

The single issue for our decision is whether the trial court erred in holding that the City of Guthrie obtained a fee simple estate rather than a surface easement in two prior condemnation proceedings. We answer in the negative.

In 1919 the City of Guthrie condemned ¹ property [the Elliott Tract] to build a water reservoir. The petition names as defendants Eli Elliott and an oil and gas leaseholder, Prairie Oil and Gas Company.

Commissioners were appointed to assess the damages caused by the condemnation of defendants' land. The Report and Appraisal of Commissioners states that the "whole of said property is necessary" for Guthrie's waterworks improvements and assesses the injury to defendants.

Both the City of Guthrie and Eli Elliott objected to the Commissioners' award and demanded a jury trial. The jury reassessed the damages but the journal entry did not specify what title was taken.

In 1920 the City of Guthrie commenced a condemnation suit ² against W.H. Poteet, Alenor Poteet and the Kniebel Investment Company, a mortgageholder. The condemnation proceedings against the "Poteet Tract" were substantially similar to the proceedings against the "Elliott Tract." ³ The journal entry was different in that it purports to vest in the City of Guthrie the "full right, title and use of the said described tract of land for the purposes aforesaid."

Appellants, successors in interest of the original condemnees, ⁴ who were unsuccessful below in their quest to quiet in themselves a fee simple title to the properties, call upon us now to "construe" ⁵ the terms of the prior condemnation proceedings and to determine that the quantum of estate taken by the City of Guthrie was less than the fee. Appellants do not bring this suit to object to the estate taken ⁶ nor do they seek to relitigate the quantum taken under the prior condemnation proceedings. ⁷

To accomplish our task of construing or interpreting the prior condemnation proceedings, our inquiry is confined to the four corners of the judgment roll ⁸ to be examined in light of the applicable statute. ⁹ Thus we cannot consider the conduct of the parties subsequent to the condemnation decree or the real estate records that affect the subject tracts because these are matters outside of the condemnation proceedings' judgment roll. Nor may we, as appellants urge, review the most recent judgment, rendered by Judge McCallister and now before us for review, on the basis of the minute entry ¹⁰ posted upon the appearance docket. Our examination must be rigorously confined to record entries. ¹¹

Appellants contend the applicable statutes ¹² authorized, but did not require, the City of Guthrie to condemn a fee simple absolute. Based upon Ramsey v. Leeper ¹³ we agree with appellants' first contention. The condemnation decree in Ramsey explicitly gave the city a fee simple and the issue was whether the statutes allowed such an estate to be taken. The court considered it clear that the legislature intended municipalities to have the power to take by condemnation a fee simple estate, ¹⁴ although the condemnation proceedings could have vested a lesser estate in the condemnor. ¹⁵

Appellants next contend that since the applicable statutes authorized rather than required a fee simple to be taken, the City of Guthrie must prove that the condemnation proceedings clearly show that Guthrie intended to acquire a fee and that a fee was acquired under the condemnation decree. ¹⁶ We cannot agree.

The decisions cited by the appellants are inapplicable to the posture of the case before us now. In the condemnation proceedings the appellants' predecessors in interest did not file written exceptions to the quantum sought to be taken. ¹⁷ Rather, jury trials were demanded in each case solely to determine the value of the estates taken. Since quantum was not at issue in either jury trial and the journal entry for the "Elliott Tract" did not indicate or even mention the quantum taken, we do not agree that we must construe the estate taken by resorting to the face of the condemnation decree.

Instead, the posture of the instant case before us requires that we construe the quantum taken in accordance with the ruling in Harn v. State. ¹⁸ In Harn, the court found that when no written exceptions are filed, the Commissioner's Report serves to pass the title condemned. Further, the court found that a fee simple title was condemned if it appears that the legislature intended to authorize an appropriation of the fee, such title was reasonably requisite to the designated use and suitable proceedings were prosecuted to that end. ¹⁹

We now consider what estate was reasonably necessary to serve the public purpose. ²⁰

In the condemnation of both tracts of land in suit here, the Report and Appraisal of Commissioners contains similar language. In the Poteet condemnation it recites that " ... the City of Guthrie ... has located its waterworks improvements and extension upon the property hereinbefore described and that the whole of said property is necessary for the said purposes and that the whole of said property must be taken from said Defendants for said purposes." ²¹ [Emphasis added.] Appellants contend this statement does not refer to the quantum of the estates being condemned but rather to the necessity of condemnation. Appellants also contend that since a water reservoir is built on top of land, only a surface easement is necessary. We find appellants' argument untenable. The plain language of the Commissioners' Report shows a fee simple absolute was necessary for the public purpose of building a reservoir. ²²

Since the applicable statutes contemplated the condemnation of a fee simple, and such estate was necessary for the designated use, we must affirm the trial court's ruling unless the condemnation proceedings show an intent to acquire a lesser estate. ²³ An examination of the condemnation proceedings reveals three areas of dispute.

First, the petition for condemnation of the Elliott Tract names as defendants Eli Elliott and Prairie Oil and Gas Company, owners of an oil and gas lease. Appellants assert that condemning the leasehold was consistent with taking a fee as well as a surface easement. Appellants hypothesize that the City of Guthrie, to avoid subsequent conflicts, condemned the oil and gas leasehold without condemning the mineral estate.

From the record before us, we conclude the condemnation of Prairie Oil and Gas Company's leasehold shows an intent to acquire a fee simple estate. The Report and Appraisal of Commissioners states that the Commissioners considered the injury which defendants Eli Elliott and Prairie Oil and Gas Company sustained by the condemnation of their property for waterworks improvements. The Report further provides that the whole of defendants' property was necessary for the waterworks improvements. This language demonstrates that the mineral estate was needed and indeed condemned for the purpose of building a water reservoir. Second, while the condemnation proceedings do not expressly convey a fee, ²⁴ they are replete with such words as "land," "real property," "appropriate" and "enter upon and take the real property." This language has previously been held to denote an intent to acquire the fee simple estate. ²⁵

Appellants correctly entertain the proposition that these key words, when coupled with language showing a clear intent to take less than a fee estate, convey the lesser estate. ²⁶ In an effort to show that less than a fee simple was intended, appellants direct our attention to the petition which provides " ... said waterworks extension and improvements has been located in the manner which will be most compatible with the greatest public good and the least private injury." Further, the appellants assert that the single reference to the term "right-of-way" and the words "upon and over", which were used in the condemnation proceeding of the Elliott tract, show that an easement was condemned.

We are unable to agree with the appellants. This language alone, in light of the expressed necessity for the condemnation, does not show that the City of Guthrie intended to acquire less than a fee. ²⁷

Third, the journal entry in the condemnation of the "Poteet Tract" provides that " ... the City of Guthrie is hereby vested with full right, title, and use of the said described tract of land for the purposes aforesaid." [Emphasis added.] Appellants assert that the underscored words show a special purpose which limits the City of Guthrie's estate to an easement. The authorities they cited are clearly inapposite in the instant case. ²⁸

We conclude, on the basis of the judgment roll examined in light of the applicable statutes, that the City of Guthrie condemned fee simple estates in the real property here in controversy.

AFFIRMED.

SIMMS, C.J., DOOLIN, V.C.J., and LAVENDER, HARGRAVE, KAUGER and SUMMERS, JJ., concur.

HODGES and WILSON, JJ., concur in judgment.

1 Case No. 2918, Dist.Ct., Logan County, State of Oklahoma.

2 Case No. 3132, Dist.Ct., Logan County, State of Oklahoma.

3 The City of Guthrie petitioned the District Court, Logan County, to appoint commissioners. The commissioners assessed the injury caused by the condemnation of defendants' land. Believing the award was too high, the City of Guthrie demanded a jury trial to decide the sole issue of damages.

4...