Grossman Investments v. State by Humphrey, CX-97-628

• Court: Court of Appeals of Minnesota
• Writing for the Court: PETERSON; KLAPHAKE
• Citation: 571 N.W.2d 47
• Parties: GROSSMAN INVESTMENTS, et al., Appellants, v. STATE of Minnesota, by Hubert H. HUMPHREY, III, its Attorney General, Respondent.
• Docket Number: No. CX-97-628,CX-97-628
• Decision Date: 18 November 1997

Page 47

571 N.W.2d 47 GROSSMAN INVESTMENTS, et al., Appellants,
v.
STATE of Minnesota, by Hubert H. HUMPHREY, III, its Attorney
General, Respondent. No. CX-97-628. Court of Appeals of Minnesota. Nov. 18, 1997.

Review Denied Jan. 28, 1998.

Page 49

Syllabus by the Court

1. When a property owner loses direct access to a highway, but retains reasonable access in at least one direction from a frontage road, the loss of direct access does not constitute a taking under Minn. Const. art. I, § 13, or Minn.Stat. § 160.08, subd. 5 (1996).

2. When no other property rights have been taken from a property owner, loss of view to and from a property abutting a highway caused by grade changes and construction of a pedestrian bridge is not compensable.

Geoffrey P. Jarpe, Maun & Simon, PLC, St. Paul, for appellants.

Hubert H. Humphrey, III, Attorney General, Donald J. Mueting, Assistant Attorney General, St. Paul, for respondents.

Considered and decided by DAVIES, P.J., and KLAPHAKE and PETERSON, JJ.

OPINION

PETERSON, Judge.

Appellants Grossman Investments and Metropolitan Corporation challenge the trial court's denial of their petition for writ of mandamus. The trial court concluded that no compensable property rights had been taken from appellants. We affirm.

FACTS

Appellants are lessees and owners of property abutting Interstate 394 (I-394), previously U.S. Highway 12, in St. Louis Park. Appellant Metropolitan Corporation operates an automobile dealership, Prestige Lincoln-Mercury (Prestige), and leases the property from appellant Grossman Investments. In 1990 and 1991, the State of Minnesota reconstructed and converted Highway 12 into I-394. Prior to the conversion, appellants' property could be accessed from Highway 12 via signalized intersections at Florida and Louisiana Avenues. The Florida Avenue access was located at the northeast corner of appellants' property; a northwest corner access to the dealership was approximately one-half mile from Louisiana Avenue. During the reconstruction, the state eliminated the Florida Avenue intersection and converted the Louisiana Avenue intersection into a diamond interchange. The state also raised the grade of the road and constructed a pedestrian bridge across I-394 in front of appellants' property. The state took no land from appellants for any part of the highway reconstruction.

In 1996, appellants filed a petition for writ of mandamus to compel the state to initiate eminent domain proceedings, contending that the changes in access and view constituted a taking under Minn. Const. art. I, § 13, and Minn.Stat. § 160.08, subd. 5 (1996). Because the material facts were undisputed, the parties submitted the issues to the trial court for decision on the briefs, arguments, and supporting affidavits. The court denied the petition, and appellants brought an alternative motion for a new trial or amended findings. This appeal is from the court's denial of appellants' posttrial motions.

ISSUES

I. Did the trial court err in concluding that appellants have reasonably convenient access to their property in at least one direction?

Page 50

II. Did the trial court err in finding that appellants' loss of view over the abutting freeway is not compensable?

ANALYSIS

I. Access

Minn. Const. art. I, § 13, provides that "[p]rivate property shall not be taken, destroyed or damaged for public use without just compensation." A taking or damage can arise out of any interference by the state with the ownership, possession, enjoyment or value of private property. See, e.g., Burger v. City of St. Paul, 241 Minn. 285, 293, 64 N.W.2d 73, 78 (1954).

Property owners have a right of "reasonably convenient and suitable access" to a public street or highway that abuts their property. Hendrickson v. State, 267 Minn. 436, 446, 127 N.W.2d 165, 173 (1964). This right of access is "a property right in the nature of an easement." State by Mondale v. Gannons, Inc., 275 Minn. 14, 24, 145 N.W.2d 321, 329 (1966). When the state alters an abutting property owner's access to a roadway, there can be a taking even if no property is actually physically appropriated. Thomsen v. State by Head, 284 Minn. 468, 471, 170 N.W.2d 575, 578 (1969). Further, Minn.Stat. § 160.08, subd. 5 (1996), provides that when the state or other road authorities establish a controlled access highway, property owners shall be compensated for "any elimination of existing access, air, view, light or other compensable property rights."

However, not every denial of immediate or convenient access will support a claim for damages. Hendrickson, 267 Minn. at 446, 127 N.W.2d at 173. An abutting property owner suffers compensable damage for loss of access only when the owner is left without " 'reasonably convenient and suitable access to the main thoroughfare in at least one direction.' " Gannons, 275 Minn. at 19, 145 N.W.2d at 326 (quoting Hendrickson, 267 Minn. at 436, 127 N.W.2d at 167). The imposition of even substantial inconvenience has not been considered tantamount to a denial of reasonable access. Johnson v. City of Plymouth, 263 N.W.2d 603, 607 (Minn.1978).

Property owners who believe their property has been taken within the meaning of Minn. Const. art. I, § 13, may petition the court for a writ of mandamus to compel the state to initiate condemnation proceedings under Minn.Stat. ch. 117. Gibson v. Commissioner of Highways, 287 Minn. 495, 498-99, 178 N.W.2d 727, 730 (1970). In such a mandamus action, the trial court must decide, as a threshold matter, whether a taking of property has occurred in the constitutional sense. City of Mankato v. Hilgers, 313 N.W.2d 610, 612-13 (Minn.1981); State by Mattson v. Prow's Motel, Inc., 285 Minn. 1, 5-6, 171 N.W.2d 83, 85-86 (1969). While either party may request a jury trial on the issues of fact, the court ultimately decides whether the facts as determined...