Skaff v. Sioux City, 53161

• Citation: 168 N.W.2d 789
• Decision Date: 10 June 1969
• Docket Number: No. 53161,53161
• Parties: Ferris SKAFF and Elizabeth Skaff, Appellees, v. SIOUX CITY, a Municipal Corporation, Appellant.
• Court: Iowa Supreme Court

Page 789

168 N.W.2d 789

Ferris SKAFF and Elizabeth Skaff, Appellees, v. SIOUX CITY, a Municipal Corporation, Appellant.

No. 53161.

Supreme Court of Iowa.

June 10, 1969.

Donald W. Sylvester, Asst. City Atty., Sioux City, for appellant.

George F. Davis, of Sifford, Wadden & Davis, Sioux City, for appellees.

SNELL, Justice.

Plaintiffs in a law action claimed damages from defendant city alleging unreasonable delay in the prosecution of eminent domain proceedings to acquire plaintiffs' business property and for interference with their use of the property while the proceedings were pending.

The city denied the material allegations of the petition. Affirmative defenses originally pleaded are not argued on appeal.

The trial court found the city as condemnor had not in good faith diligently instituted and prosecuted the eminent domain proceedings, and that the delay was unreasonable giving rise to this collateral action for consequential damages. The court further found the city had obstructed access to plaintiffs' property to their damage. The court rendered judgment for plaintiffs and against the city. The city appealed.

The only question presented by the appellant is the sufficiency of the evidence to support the findings of the trial court.

Plaintiffs owned a lot in Sioux City with a 40 foot frontage on Fourth Street and a 150 foot frontage on Steuben Street entirely covered by a one-story well constructed brick and tile building. There were sidewalks around the building on the street sides and the streets were paved.

On the Fourth Street side (south) there was a double door with an opening of five feet. On the Steuben Street side (west) there was a walk in door and a 12 12 overhead door which allowed trucks to drive up to and into the building from Steuben Street.

On the north end of the building (back) there was a door facing an alley and a railroad spur track for loading and unloading box cars.

The building had been leased to a distributor of refrigeration equipment since January of 1948 at a rental of $300 per month.

Plaintiffs also owned a building and 5 lots on the west side of Steuben Street occupied by the Guarantee Roofing Company that are not the subject of this action.

For years the Floyd River flowing through the city had been a perennial source of trouble and damage at flood time. Corrective measures were discussed and developed and became known as Floyd Flood Control Project. At about the same time an urban renewal project was planned for adjacent property.

In late 1960 plaintiffs were advised that both of their properties were located within Floyd River Flood Control Project involving the relocation of the Floyd River.

The 'take line' for the Flood Control Project included within its boundaries 403 square feet of plaintiffs' property here involved and all of their property on the west side of Steuben Street.

During the fall of 1960 and January of 1961 the city negotiated with plaintiffs concerning acquisition of both of the properties.

The taking of the property by the city appeared imminent.

The tenant renting the property here involved moved out and relocated. Plaintiffs' property across the street was taken by the city in January 1962. From 1961 until April 1965 the 403 square feet of plaintiffs' building here involved were in the Floyd Control Project. The taking of that part would require the razing of the building.

For the financial convenience of the city (substantial federal aid was involved) the construction work on the flood control project worked around plaintiffs' property and the property was not taken until April 1965 when Urban Renewal funds were available.

In the meantime plaintiffs were able to rent their building for only a short period of time and at a reduced rental. Taxes at the rate of $1100 per year continued.

The chronology of events illustrates the situation.

Late 1960--the owners were advised that this property was within the flood control project.

Fall of 1960 & January of 1961--city negotiated with these owners for acquisition of this property.

February 1961--tenant moves out and relocates.

April 1961--city holds public meeting attended by residents and business owners in area to discuss boundaries of both projects.

May 1961--city knows a portion of the property will be included in the urban renewal project if the federal funds eventually became available.

August 1961--final designation of take line for flood control project made by Army Engineers including 403 square feet of the property.

January 1962--city condemned other property of appellees adjacent to this one for use in flood control project.

April 1962--in connection with the flood control project the city began excavation work for a bridge on an abutting street. Pavement on both streets adjacent to this property was torn up and utilities disconnected. The railroad spur to the loading dock at the back of the building was terminated. Access to the building and use of it was impossible.

The exhibits clearly show the conditions.

November 1962--Fourth Street (front of building) reopened to traffic.

February 1963--Fourth Street became usable to the owners, Steuben Street that had been adjacent to the side of the building never did. The door on that side and the north (back of the building) could not be used. The utility lines to the building had not been reconnected.

February 25, 1963--owner inquires of city as to its present intentions having received some information the city was not going to condemn the building.

March 4, 1963--city replies it is still going to acquire the property, admits part of it is already in flood control project, but prefers to finance the acquisition out of urban renewal funds.

March 1963--before renting the property the owners had to restore the utilities at their own expense after first getting the consent of the city.

March 1963--owners lease building at reduced rate of rent.

May 1963--city forbids owners and their tenants from driving off Fourth Street to the front door, the only remaining door of the 4 original ones, unless they limit the weight of the trucks and indemnify the city for damages that might be done to the sidewalk.

October 4, 1963--city advises owners that procedures to acquire the title to the property would commence in January of 1964.

April 1965--city acquires title to property from the owners under threat of condemnation.

The trial court found:

'1. The evidence offered herein by both of the parties sustains and establishes each and every material allegation of plaintiffs' petition as amended.

'2. Late in 1960 and early in 1961, the defendant city announced that the property in question was going to be taken by the city through Eminent Domain Proceedings as part of the Floyd River Control Project, the final decision as to including it in that project being made in August of 1961.

'3. Though adjacent property was condemned in connection with this project in January of 1962, no proceedings for acquisition of the property in question were then commenced.

'4. During 1962, the defendant city did appropriate and use the property in question in connection with said project.

'5. On April 1, 1965, the defendant city consummated Eminent Domain proceedings to take title to the property in question, these proceedings being in connection with and financed...