Recke v. State
| Decision Date | 15 March 1974 |
| Docket Number | No. 44107,44107 |
| Citation | 215 N.W.2d 786,298 Minn. 500 |
| Parties | Regina RECKE, Individually, and d.b.a. Prairie Motel, Appellant, v. STATE of Minnesota, Its Attorney General, Warren Spannaus, et al., Respondents. |
| Court | Minnesota Supreme Court |
Syllabus by the Court
Compensation need not be paid for damages caused by the reconstruction and relocation of a highway to a new right-of-way resulting in a diversion of the main flow of traffic away from plaintiff's property which abuts the old right-of-way. Held, under the facts of this case, any diminution in value of plaintiff's property caused by the relocation and reconstruction of State Highways No. 169 and No. 212 is not constitutionally compensable.
Wurst, Bundlie, Carroll & Crouch and Donald R. Bundlie, Minneapolis, for appellant.
Warren Spannaus, Atty. Gen., Eric B. Schultz, Deputy Atty. Gen., John C. Jeppesen, Sp. Asst. Atty. Gen., St. Paul, for respondents.
Heard before KNUTSON, C.J., and KELLY, MacLAUGHLIN, and MULALLY, JJ., and considered and decided by the court.
Plaintiff, Regina Recke, d.b.a. Prairie Motel, petitioned for a writ of mandamus compelling defendant, State of Minnesota, to commence condemnation proceedings to compensate her for diminution in the value of her motel caused by defendant's relocation and reconstruction of State Highways No. 169 and No. 212. The trial court denied the petition on the ground that the damages sustained by plaintiff are not constitutionally compensable. We affirm.
Plaintiff is the owner of the Prairie Motel, which for several years has been located within the Eden Prairie village limits on Highways 169 and 212, both of which ran along the same right-of-way at the point where the motel is located. In 1971, the state began a relocation and reconstruction program for Highways 169 and 212, converting them into a controlled- or limited-access freeway. Prior to the relocation and reconstruction, plaintiff's motel abutted and had complete access to the highway, which was a two-lane roadway. The new right-of-way of Highways 169 and 212 has been relocated to the north and west of plaintiff's property and, at its nearest point, is 445 feet from the subject property and approximately 785 feet from the right-of-way of the old highway at the site of the motel. No land was acquired from plaintiff for construction of the new highway.
After the relocation and reconstruction, plaintiff's property continues to abut the old highway, now called Flying Cloud Drive. There has been no interference with or change whatsoever in the access that plaintiff's property had to the old highway prior to the relocation. Approximately 3,000 feet to the southwest of plaintiff's property, Flying Cloud Drive will provide access to the newly constructed Highways 169 and 212 via County State Aid Highway (C.S.A.H.) No. 61 and a full-diamond interchange. By crossing over the newly relocated highways on C.S.A.H. No. 61, it is possible to continue along the previous route of old Highways 169 and 212. To the east of plaintiff's property, Flying Cloud Drive intersects Washington Drive, an Eden Prairie village street, which in turn intersects other local and county roads.
Because of the relocation of the highway, traffic on the new highway is rerouted away from plaintiff's motel, and there has been an appreciable decline in the market value of the property. The issue is whether this decline in the market value is constitutionally compensable under the facts in this case.
Minn.Const. art. 1, § 13, provides:
'Private property shall not be taken, destroyed or damaged for public use without just compensation therefor, first paid or secured.'
Under Minn.St. 160.08, landowners abutting a controlled-access highway may be allowed either limited access or no access whatsoever, but subd. 5 provides:
'* * * In the case of any elimination of existing access, air, view, light, or other compensable property rights, the owner shall be compensated for the loss by purchase or condemnation.'
In State, by Lord, v. Kohler, 268 Minn. 77, 81, 128 N.W.2d 90, 93 (1964), we stated:
'* * * (W)here in the construction of a controlled-access highway an owner of abutting property is denied reasonably convenient and suitable access to the main traveled portion of a highway reconstructed on an existing right-of-way which previously was entirely accessible to such property, compensable damage may be sustained notwithstanding the availability of a frontage road from which the property has circuitous access to the main thoroughfare at interchanges.'
Later cases have followed this rule, holding that a property owner is entitled to reasonably convenient and suitable access in at least one direction to the main-traveled lanes of the highway on which his property abuts. State, by Mondale, v. Gannons Inc., 275 Minn. 14, 145 N.W.2d 321 (1966); State, by Mattson, v. Prow's Motel, Inc., 285 Minn. 1, 171 N.W.2d 83 (1969); Gibson v. Commissioner of Highways, 287 Minn. 495, 178 N.W.2d 727 (1970).
On the other hand, as we said in Hendrickson v. State, 267 Minn. 436,...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
County of Anoka v. Blaine Bldg. Corp.
...at 19, 145 N.W.2d at 326 (citing Hendrickson, 267 Minn. at 436, 127 N.W.2d at 167) (emphasis added). See also Recke v. State, 298 Minn. 500, 502, 215 N.W.2d 786, 788 (1974). "[T]he law is well settled * * * that the dividing of a roadway by median strips or dividers cannot be made the subje......
-
Malone v. Com.
...v. Wooton, 507 S.W.2d 451 (Ky.App.1974); Flynn v. Commonwealth, Dep't of Highways, 428 S.W.2d 24 (Ky.App.1968); Recke v. State, 298 Minn. 500, 215 N.W.2d 786 (1974); LaBriola v. State, 36 N.Y.2d 328, 368 N.Y.S.2d 147, 328 N.E.2d 781 (1975); Hession Condemnation Case, 430 Pa. 273, 242 A.2d 4......
-
State by Humphrey v. Strom, s. C4-91-1941
...out, have no compensable property right to the continuous and sustained flow of traffic past its property, Recke v. State, 298 Minn. 500, 502-503, 215 N.W.2d 786, 788 (1974), where, as here, the property taken by the state from the abutting owner was used to raise the south frontage road to......
-
Dale Properties, LLC v. State
...Minn. at 19,145 N.W.2d at 326; Hendrickson v. State, 267 Minn. 436, 437, 127 N.W.2d 165, 168 (1964)). See also Recke v. State, 298 Minn. 500, 502, 215 N.W.2d 786, 788 (1974). The import of this statement is clear—when a roadway is changed, a property owner may not be denied "reasonably conv......