Kan. Fire & Safety Equip. v. City of Topeka
| Docket Number | 123,063 |
| Decision Date | 30 June 2023 |
| Parties | Kansas Fire and Safety Equipment, a Kansas Corporation; Hal G. Richardson d/b/a Bueno Food Brand and Topeka Vinyl Top; and Hal G. Richardson and Doug Vess, General Partners in Minuteman Solar Film, a Kansas Partnership, Appellants/Cross-appellees, v. City of Topeka, Kansas, Appellee/Cross-appellant. |
| Court | Kansas Supreme Court |
SYLLABUS BY THE COURT
1. Kansas courts generally follow a two-part test to determine whether a statute implies a private right of action. First the party must show that the statute was designed to protect a specific group of people rather than to protect the general public. Second, the court must review legislative history to determine whether a private right of action was intended.
2 K.S.A. 26-518 does not create an implied private right of action allowing displaced persons to sue a condemning authority for relocation benefits and assistance in a civil cause of action filed directly in district court.
3. The Eminent Domain Procedure Act, K.S.A. 26-501 et seq., limits the scope of judicial review in eminent-domain appeals to the issue of just compensation as defined by K.S.A. 26-513. Relocation benefits are not a component of just compensation under K.S.A. 26-513 4 K.S.A. 58-3509(a) of the Kansas Relocation Assistance for Persons Displaced by Acquisition of Real Property Act, K.S.A. 58-3501 et seq., provides a comprehensive remedy for vindicating the statutory right to relocation benefits and assistance. K.S.A. 58-3509(a) allows a displaced person to appeal to the state, agency, or political subdivision within 60 days of the initial determination of relocation benefits. If such an appeal is made, an independent hearing examiner shall be appointed by the condemning authority within 10 days and a determination of the appeal made within 60 days. After administrative review is complete, any party wishing to appeal the ruling of the hearing examiner may do so by filing a written notice of appeal with the clerk of the district court within 30 days of the hearing examiner's decision. Any such appeal to the district court shall be a trial de novo only on the issue of relocation benefits.
5. A party must exhaust their administrative remedies under K.S.A. 58-3509(a) before appealing a hearing examiner's ruling on the issue of relocation benefits and assistance to the district court. The failure to exhaust such administrative remedies deprives the district court of subject matter jurisdiction.
Oral argument held March 31, 2023.
Review of the judgment of the Court of Appeals in 62 Kan.App.2d 341, 514 P.3d 387 (2022).
Appeal from Shawnee District Court; RICHARD D. ANDERSON, judge.
John R. Hamilton, of Hamilton, Laughlin, Barker, Johnson &Jones, of Topeka, argued the cause, and Jason B. Prier, of The Prier Law Firm, L.L.C., of Lawrence, was with him on the briefs for appellants/cross-appellees.
Shelly Starr, chief of litigation, City of Topeka, argued the cause and was on the briefs for appellee/cross-appellant.
Governmental authorities have inherent power to take private property for public use. But the exercise of this power comes at a cost to those whose property is taken. Thus, the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution and Article 12, section 4, of the Kansas Constitution prohibit such takings without just compensation. These constitutional principles are reflected in the Kansas Eminent Domain Procedure Act (EDPA), K.S.A. 26-501 et seq., which creates a process for determining just compensation.
But the financial costs of eminent domain are not limited to the loss of private property. Persons may be displaced when the government exercises this power. So Kansas law also requires a condemning authority to provide certain relocation benefits and assistance to those displaced by the government's exercise of eminent domain. Specifically, the EDPA provides that whenever federal funding is not involved and real property is acquired by a condemning authority through negotiation in advance of a condemnation action or through a condemnation action, the authority must provide relocation payments and assistance to displaced persons. K.S.A. 26-518(a). The Kansas Relocation Assistance for Persons Displaced by Acquisition of Real Property Act (KRA), K.S.A. 58-3501 et seq., recognizes the same substantive right to relocation benefits and assistance. See K.S.A. 58-3508. In fact, the language in the two statutory provisions is nearly identical.
But the EDPA and KRA differ in remedy. The EDPA does not provide for judicial review of relocation-benefit determinations. Instead, in eminent-domain appeals, the EDPA limits the district court's scope of review to the issue of just compensation only.
But the KRA provides an administrative remedy designed to vindicate the statutory right to relocation benefits and assistance under the EDPA and KRA. Under K.S.A. 58-3509, a displaced person may appeal the condemning authority's relocation-benefits determination to an independent hearing examiner. Once the administrative remedy has been exhausted, any party dissatisfied with the examiner's ruling may seek judicial review in the district court.
Kansas Fire and Safety Equipment, Hal G. Richardson d/b/a Bueno Foods Brand and Topeka Vinyl Top, and Minuteman Solar Film (the tenants), were forced to relocate when the City of Topeka (the City) bought the real property the tenants leased for their business operations. The tenants alleged that the property was acquired before a condemnation action. And they sued the City to recover relocation expenses in an action filed directly with the district court under the EDPA.
The City moved for summary judgment, arguing there is no statutory right to judicial review of relocation-benefit determinations under the EDPA. And without a statutory basis for such review, the City claimed the district court lacked subject matter jurisdiction over the action. The district court agreed and granted summary judgment to the City. On appeal, a panel of the Court of Appeals agreed that the district court lacked subject matter jurisdiction. But the panel held that the proper disposition of the case was dismissal without prejudice, rather than entry of judgment for the City. So, the panel reversed and remanded for the district court to enter such an order. Kansas Fire and Safety Equipment v. City of Topeka, 62 Kan.App.2d 341, 353, 514 P.3d 387 (2022).
We granted the tenants' petition for review to determine whether the district court had subject matter jurisdiction. Ultimately, we hold that the district court lacked subject matter jurisdiction over the tenants' petition. The EDPA neither provides a private right of action to recover relocation benefits nor authorizes judicial review of relocation-benefit determinations in eminent-domain appeals. In contrast, the KRA does provide an administrative remedy to vindicate the statutory right to relocation benefits. And once the administrative appeal is completed, the KRA also authorizes district court review of the hearing examiner's ruling. But the tenants' failure to exhaust this administrative remedy deprived the district court of subject matter jurisdiction under the KRA. Finally, while K.S.A. 60-2101(d) authorizes appeals to the district court from certain final judgments and orders of a political subdivision, this statute does not apply because the KRA provides a more specific procedure for judicial review. We thus affirm the judgment of the Court of Appeals.
This is the second time this case is before us. In 2011, the City passed an ordinance authorizing a public works project to replace a structurally deficient drainage system on a tributary to Butcher Creek. The purpose of the project was to alleviate potential flooding within the city limits. As part of the project, the City entered negotiations to buy property the tenants leased to operate their businesses. During negotiations, the City informed the property owner that it wanted the land vacant before obtaining title. The owner and the City entered a purchase agreement in September 2013. That agreement required the owner to notify all tenants to vacate and ensure the property was vacant by early January 2014.
On October 18, 2013, an attorney representing the tenants sent a letter to the City requesting relocation costs under K.S.A 26-518 (), or the Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (URA) (if federal funds were involved).
The Deputy City Attorney denied the request in an October 31, 2013 letter. The letter stated that no federal funds were involved in the project, thus the City need not pay relocation costs under K.S.A. 58-3502 (). The letter also stated that the City was purchasing the property from the owner, rather than acquiring the property through condemnation, thus the City need not pay relocation costs under K.S.A. 58-3508 or K.S.A. 26-518.
The tenants later sued for relocation costs. They alleged that they were entitled to such costs because they were displaced persons as defined by K.S.A. 26-518 of the EDPA and the URA. According to the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development, the URA "is a federal law that establishes minimum standards for federally funded programs and projects that require the acquisition of real property (real estate) or displace persons from their homes businesses, or farms." https://www.hudexchange.info/programs/relocation/overview/#overview-of-the-ura. While K.S.A. 26-518 incorporates some provisions of the URA by reference, the...
To continue reading
Request your trial