Estate of Kirkpatrick v. City of Olathe
Citation | 215 P.3d 561 |
Decision Date | 04 September 2009 |
Docket Number | No. 96,229.,No. 96,981.,96,229.,96,981. |
Parties | ESTATE OF Archie KIRKPATRICK, Appellee, v. The CITY OF OLATHE, Kansas, Appellant, and Cook, Flatt & Strobel, Engineers, P.A., Defendant. |
Court | Kansas Supreme Court |
James A. Gottschalk, of the Law Offices of Donald B. Balfour, of Chesterfield, Missouri, and Leonard A. Hall, assistant city attorney, of Olathe, argued the cause, and Diane S. Mills, of the Law Offices of Donald B. Balfour, of Overland Park, was with Leonard A. Hall on the briefs for appellant.
Nancy J. Crawford, of Smithyman & Zakoura, Chartered, of Overland Park, argued the cause and was on the brief for appellee.
This inverse condemnation appeal comes before us on the landowner's petition for review of the decision by the Kansas Court of Appeals in Estate of Kirkpatrick v. City of Olathe, 39 Kan.App.2d 162, 178 P.3d 667 (2008). The landowner claimed that his home was substantially damaged as a result of the City of Olathe's construction of an adjacent roundabout, which altered the flow of groundwater in the area. The district court awarded the landowner compensation under K.S.A. 26-513. The Court of Appeals reversed, concluding that mere damage to real property is not compensable under Kansas eminent domain law unless the damage is necessary to the completion of a public improvement project. 39 Kan.App.2d at 169-70, 178 P.3d 667.
The facts giving rise to this action and its disposition are accurately recounted in the Court of Appeals opinion:
39 Kan. App.2d at 163-65, 178 P.3d 667.
The City appealed, arguing that its actions in constructing the roundabout did not constitute a compensable taking of the Estate's property. The Court of Appeals agreed and reversed. 39 Kan.App.2d at 170, 178 P.3d 667. We granted the Estate's petition for review; we now reverse the decision of the Court of Appeals and affirm the judgment of the district court.
In reaching its decision, the Court of Appeals considered the Kansas Eminent Domain Procedure Act (EDPA), K.S.A. 26-501 et seq., as well as Kansas case law regarding inverse condemnation. The Court of Appeals noted a "fundamental tension" between the statutory language of the EDPA, which recognizes that a compensable taking includes "property damaged" during the course of a public improvement project, and this court's case law, which has held that damage is only compensable if it is "necessary" to the completion of such a project. Estate of Kirkpatrick, 39 Kan.App.2d at 167-69, 178 P.3d 667. Compare K.S.A. 26-513(a) with Deisher v. Kansas Dept. of Transportation, 264 Kan. 762, 772, 958 P.2d 656 (1998). Despite the express provision of the statute relating to "property damaged," the Court of Appeals concluded it was bound to follow the "controlling Supreme Court authority" holding "that mere damage to an adjoining property is not a compensable taking unless the damage was necessary to the completion of the public use project." 39 Kan.App.2d at 169, 178 P.3d 667. The Court of Appeals concluded that
39 Kan.App.2d at 169, 178 P.3d 667.
We granted the Estate's petition for review to clarify the apparent discrepancy between the plain language of the EDPA and our case law.
This court has long recognized that "the right to take private property for a public use is inherent in the state." State, ex rel. v. Urban Renewal Agency of Kansas City, 179 Kan. 435, 438, 296 P.2d 656 (1956). Nevertheless, the State's power of eminent domain is limited by both federal and state law. In particular, the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution, made applicable to the states by way of the Fourteenth Amendment, provides that "private property [shall not] be taken for public use, without just compensation."
Since the enactment the EDPA in 1963, procedures governing the exercise of eminent domain in Kansas have been defined by statute. See L.1963, ch. 234, sec. 13. Notable to our discussion here, K.S.A. 26-513 commences with a codification of the Fifth Amendment, providing that "[p]rivate property shall not be taken or damaged for public use without just compensation." K.S.A. 26-513(a).
Ordinarily, eminent domain proceedings are initiated by the condemning authority to determine the extent of the property taken and the compensation due under EDPA and the United States Constitution. See, e.g., Miller v. Glacier Development Co., 284 Kan. 476, 499, 161 P.3d 730 (2007). Inverse condemnation proceedings, such as those giving rise to the present appeal, are initiated by the party having a property interest (instead of the condemning authority) and are available when private property has been taken for public use without the initiation of formal condemnation proceedings by the government. Kau Kau Take Home No. 1 v. City of Wichita, 281 Kan. 1185, 1189, 135 P.3d 1221 (2006), cert. denied 549 U.S. 1265, 127 S.Ct. 1495, 167 L.Ed.2d 229 (2007); see Nat'l Compressed Steel Corp. v. Unified Gov't of Wyandotte County/Kansas City, 272 Kan. 1239, 1245, 38 P.3d 723 (2002) ( ).
To succeed on a claim for inverse condemnation, a party must establish that he or she has an interest in real property affected by a public improvement project and that a taking has occurred. The question of whether there has...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Town of Gurley v. M&N Materials, Inc.
...... & N stated: ‘Vulcan backed out [of the option price] because of no City of Gurley [business] license. This reason [is the] sole reason [that was] ... LE's claim, which relates only to ‘a portion of the mineral estate, i.e., the surface mineable coal, prevents any conclusion that a ... [143 So.3d 56] as recognized in Estate of Kirkpatrick v. City of Olathe, 289 Kan. 554, 215 P.3d 561 (2009); Annison v. Hoover, ......
-
Zimmerman v. Bd. of County Commissioners of Wabaunsee County
.......Alan Claus Anderson, of Husch Blackwell Sanders, L.L.P., of Kansas City, Missouri, and Derek T. Teeter, of the same firm, were on the brief for ... wind farms—and that there is no such thing as a severable wind estate for takings analysis. In finding no taking, the district ...City of Olathe, 245 Kan. 458, 781 P.2d 1069 (1989) ] and McPherson Landfill ... Estate of Kirkpatrick v. City of Olathe, 289 Kan. 554, 559, 215 P.3d 561 (2009) (citing ......
-
Creegan v. State
...Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. Estate of Kirkpatrick v. City of Olathe, 289 Kan. 554, 558, 215 P.3d 561 (2009). In Kansas, the exercise of eminent domain is governed by the EDPA. The EDPA codifies the prohibition in the Fifth Amendment by stati......
-
Miller v. Preisser
...762, 772, 958 P.2d 656 (1998), superseded by statute on other grounds as stated in Estate of Kirkpatrick v. City of Olathe, 289 Kan. 554, 215 P.3d 561 (2009). The Landowners do not dispute that this is the applicable standard of review; they do not challenge the factual basis for the distri......