Roth v. State Highway Com'n of Missouri

Decision Date16 October 1984
Docket NumberNo. 47442,47442
Citation688 S.W.2d 775
PartiesDonald E. ROTH, et al., Plaintiffs-Respondents, v. STATE HIGHWAY COMMISSION OF MISSOURI, Defendant-Appellant.
CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

John Wheelan Maupin, Kirkwood, for defendant-appellant.

Samuel C. Ebling, St. Louis, for plaintiffs-respondents.

STEPHAN, Judge.

Defendant State Highway Commission of Missouri appeals from the trial court's granting of a motion for new trial on the ground that the verdict for defendant was against the weight of the evidence. Plaintiff's action against defendant is in the nature of a claim for inverse condemnation, in which plaintiff sought damages for the interference with the use of his property.

Plaintiff owned a tract of land of approximately 84 acres in St. Louis County located partially in the Village of Bel-Ridge and partially in the Village (now City) of St. John. This property was in the pathway of the Innerbelt Highway (now Interstate Route 170), and a portion of it was condemned ultimately for highway purposes by defendant. Prior to the condemnation, the tract was zoned for industrial use under the St. John and Bel-Ridge zoning codes, and the land was formally platted into an industrial park known as the "Rock Road Industrial Center."

On October 28, 1968, Mr. James Roberts, Division Engineer for defendant, and Mr. Lancaster, another Highway Commission employee, attended a meeting of the Board of Trustees of the Village of Bel-Ridge. In January, 1970, Roberts attended similar meetings at the Board of Trustees in the Village of St. John and again at the Board in Bel-Ridge. At each of these meetings, Roberts discussed the impending Innerbelt Highway construction and the need to prevent any building permits from being issued to the people owning the land involved.

Additionally, Roberts sent correspondence to the Villages of St. John and Bel-Ridge in November, 1969, asking that these municipalities halt plaintiff's development of the Rock Road Industrial Center. Roberts sent letters to the village clerks of St. John and Bel-Ridge in May, 1970, seeking cooperation from these municipalities and again requesting that no building permits be issued to plaintiff. In October, 1973, the State Highway Engineer wrote to the Village of Bel-Ridge, asking that it refuse rezoning of the tract. Plaintiff testified that, when he applied for building permits in St. John, the city engineer told plaintiff, "[O]ver my dead body will you get [a building permit] until you settle with the Highway Department."

Defendant formally approved the acquisition of the property by purchase or condemnation on March 16, 1971. An offer of $465,000.00 was made to plaintiff in July, 1971, which plaintiff refused as being unrealistic. In April 1970, defendant's District Right of Way Agent, Charles Sample, estimated damages to plaintiff's land resulting from the proposed taking at $2,250,000. In July 1970, two other employees of defendant appraised the damages at $1,543,278 and $1,409,576, respectively. Plaintiff met with representatives of defendant in January, 1972, August, 1973, and October, 1973, and the offer of $465,000.00 was restated. Plaintiff refused the offers and requested that the Commission go forward with the condemnation. He received repeated assurances this would be done. Instead, in May, 1974, defendant increased its offer to $522,300, which plaintiff refused.

Plaintiff, an attorney representing him in another condemnation matter with the defendant Commission, and a Commission attorney met in the fall of 1974 to discuss the other piece of property owned by plaintiff which was also located in the path of the Innerbelt Highway. Plaintiff testified that defendant's attorney told him "that unless we settled this other case on his terms, he would not file the condemnation petition that he had ready to file..." which involved the property in the instant case. Based on a review of two additional appraisals completed on the property in 1975, defendant approved a new offer of $985,800 to plaintiff on January 19, 1976. The new offer was presented to plaintiff on February 2, 1976, which plaintiff refused. Defendant filed its condemnation suit for plaintiff's property on April 19, 1976, and paid the Commissioners' award into the court's registry on September 24, 1976.

Plaintiff thereafter filed this action against defendant for compensation for pre-condemnation injury. At trial, evidence was adduced from which a jury could find that, because of the tactics of defendant and its agents, plaintiff suffered substantial monetary loss by being prevented from developing the eighty-four acre tract during the seven year delay between defendant's announcement of its condemnation plans and the filing of the condemnation suit. After the jury returned a verdict for defendant, the trial court granted plaintiff's motion for new trial on the ground that the verdict was against the weight of the evidence.

The power to enter such order derives from Rule 78.02; and, when entered, the order is viewed as presumptively correct by an...

To continue reading

Request your trial
13 cases
  • Collier v. City of Oak Grove, No. WD 65355 (Mo. App. 4/24/2007), WD 65355.
    • United States
    • Missouri Court of Appeals
    • April 24, 2007
    ...869, 871 (Mo. 1957). See also Harris v. Mo. Dep't of Conservation, 755 S.W.2d 726, 729 (Mo. App. 1988); Roth v. State Highway Comm'n of Mo., 688 S.W.2d 775, 777 (Mo. App. 1984). "[I]t must appear that there has been some direct disturbance of a right which the plaintiff enjoys in connection......
  • Collier v. City of Oak Grove, No. WD 65355 (Mo. App. 10/31/2006)
    • United States
    • Missouri Court of Appeals
    • October 31, 2006
    ...869, 871 (Mo. 1957). See also Harris v. Mo. Dep't of Conservation, 755 S.W.2d 726, 729 (Mo. App. 1988); Roth v. State Highway Comm'n of Mo., 688 S.W.2d 775, 777 (Mo. App. 1984). "[I]t must appear that there has been some direct disturbance of a right which the plaintiff enjoys in connection......
  • Tierney v. Planned Indus. Expansion Authority of Kansas City, s. 69317
    • United States
    • Missouri Supreme Court
    • December 15, 1987
    ...in the counterclaim in that case, in which the dominant theme was loss of rental income. The owners also cite Roth v. State Highway Commission, 688 S.W.2d 775 (Mo.App.1985). The essential charge in that case was that the highway commission interfered with the rights of propertyowners by int......
  • Clay County Realty Co. v. City of Gladstone
    • United States
    • Missouri Supreme Court
    • June 10, 2008
    ...that limit use of private property can sometimes constitute a de facto exercise of eminent domain; and citing Roth v. State Highway Comm'n, 688 S.W.2d 775, 778 (Mo.App.1984), wherein a claim for inverse condemnation was based on alleged aggravated delay by the condemnor coupled with a condi......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT