State Dept. of Highways, Division of Highways v. Davis
Decision Date | 06 April 1981 |
Docket Number | No. 79SC147,79SC147 |
Citation | 626 P.2d 661 |
Parties | STATE DEPARTMENT OF HIGHWAYS, DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS, State of Colorado, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Edward DAVIS and Gertrude R. Davis, Respondents-Appellees, Heritage Savings and Loan Association; Marie R. DeWitt and Lloyd C. DeWitt, Trustees, D. Kirk Tracy; and Geneva C. Mosher, as Treasurer and Public Trustee of Prowers County, Respondents. |
Court | Colorado Supreme Court |
J. D. MacFarlane, Atty. Gen., Richard J. Hennessey, Deputy Atty. Gen., Edward G. Donovan, Sol. Gen., Vicki J. Fowler, Asst. Atty. Gen., Denver, for petitioner-appellant.
Andersen & Gehlhausen, P. C., John Gehlhausen, Lamar, for respondents-appellees.
No appearance for respondents.
We granted certiorari to review the court of appeals' decision in State Department of Highways v. Davis et al., 42 Colo.App. 250, 596 P.2d 400 (1979). We reverse and remand with directions for a new trial on the issue of damages to the remainder.
The State Department of Highways (petitioner) filed a petition to condemn a narrow strip of land owned by respondents to construct a service road for a freeway. See article 1 of title 38, C.R.S.1973. Prior to a jury trial to determine the value of the property taken and the damages to the remainder, the court, pursuant to section 38-1-101, C.R.S.1973, held an in limine hearing on respondents' motion to determine damages to the remainder caused by the condemnation. The parties stipulated that prior to the condemnation, respondents had two direct points of access onto State Highway 50. Both before and after the taking, respondents operated a store on their property which rented various types of equipment. The land was condemned to construct a frontage road to service the limited access highway. Respondents retained two points of direct access to the frontage road. The frontage road provided respondents with direct access onto State Highway 50 at a junction which was approximately 300 feet east of their property.
At the conclusion of the in limine hearing, the court declared that respondents' access to the remainder had been substantially impaired, and held that respondents could present evidence of damages to the remainder caused by the impairment of access. The court also permitted respondents' appraiser to testify as to his opinion on damages to the remainder caused by statutory restrictions on the erection of new advertising devices. See part 4 of article 1 of title 43, C.R.S.1973 (Colorado Outdoor Advertising Act).
At trial, respondents' appraiser testified that damages to the remainder which resulted from the taking of respondents' land were $26,389 because:
One of the respondents, as landowner, expressed his opinion on damages to the remainder when asked the following questions:
Petitioner's appraiser testified that in his opinion no damages to the remainder occurred as a result of the taking.
The parties stipulated to the value of improvements taken, and the primary issues for the jury were the value of the property taken and the damages to the remainder caused by impairment of access. The jury returned a verdict of $10,181 for the property actually taken, and $21,689 for damages to the remainder. The court entered judgment on the jury's verdict, and amended the award to include the stipulated value of the improvements.
Petitioner appealed from the $21,689 award for damages to the remainder. The court of appeals, in an opinion which relied in large part upon the fact that a portion of respondents' land was actually taken, affirmed the trial court. The opinion concluded that the trial court determined that respondents' right of access had been substantially impaired, and that the jury properly considered impairment of access in its determination of damages to the remainder. The court of appeals also concluded that statutory restrictions on a landowner's right to construct signs along freeways are proper factors for the jury to consider in determining damages to the remainder. These conclusions of law are before us for review. We conclude that the jury should not have been permitted to consider damages to the remainder caused by impairment of access and advertising restrictions, and that a new trial on the issue of damages to the remainder is required.
The right of access is the right of a landowner who abuts on a street or highway to reasonable ingress and egress. Radinsky v. Denver, 159 Colo. 134, 410 P.2d 644 (1966); Minnequa Co. v. Denver, 67 Colo. 472, 186 P. 539 (1919); Pueblo v. Strait, 20 Colo. 13, 36 P. 789 (1894); City of Denver v. Bayer, 7 Colo. 113, 2 P. 6 (1883); People v. Ayon, 54 Cal.2d 217, 352 P.2d 519, 5 Cal.Rptr. 151 (1960). Covey, Frontage Roads: To Compensate or Not to Compensate, 56 N.W.L.Rev. 587 (1961); Campbell, The Limited Access Highway Some Aspects of Compensation, 8 Utah L.Rev. 12 (1962). A landowner's right of access to and from land abutting a highway may be reasonably regulated for the public safety or welfare under the police power. Hayutin v. Highway Department, 175 Colo. 83, 485 P.2d 896 (1971). 2A, J. Sackman, Nichols on Eminent Domain, § 6.4443(4) (rev. 3d ed. 1976); 1, Orgel, Valuation Under The Law of Eminent Domain, § 1 (2d ed. 1953). See generally, City of Boulder v. Kahn's Inc., 190 Colo. 90, 543 P.2d 711 (1975).
The power of the government to regulate access is limited, however, by Article II, Section 15 of the Colorado Constitution which provides: "Private property shall not be taken or damaged, for public or private use, without just compensation...." The question of when the regulation of land under the police power becomes a "taking" for which compensation is constitutionally required is a matter of degree. See Collopy v. Wildlife Commission, --- Colo. ---, 625 P.2d 994 (1981). While property may be regulated to a certain extent, if regulation goes too far it will be recognized as a taking. Pennsylvania Coal Co. v. Mahon, 260 U.S. 393, 43 S.Ct. 158, 67 L.Ed. 322 (1922).
The issue, therefore, is whether the respondents can recover damages to the remainder of their property caused by the limitation of access. Resolution of the damages issue requires us to determine whether the recovery of damages for impairment or limitation of access depends on whether part of the abutting landowner's property has been taken.
A long line of cases in Colorado have dealt with impairment of an abutting landowner's right of access and the effect of the impairment on the damage issue in an eminent domain proceeding. See, e. g., Shaklee v. County Comm., 176 Colo. 559, 491 P.2d 1366 (1971); Hayutin v. Highway Department, supra; Thornton v. Colo. Spgs., 173 Colo. 357, 478 P.2d 665 (1970); Majestic Hts. v. Co. Comm., 173 Colo. 178, 476 P.2d 745 (1970); Troiano v. Colorado Department of Highways, 170 Colo. 484, 463 P.2d 448 (1969), compare, Minnequa Co. v. Denver, supra; Radinsky v. Denver, supra; Gayton v. Colorado, 149 Colo. 72, 367 P.2d 899 (1962); Boxberger v. State Highway Commission, 126 Colo. 526, 251 P.2d 920 (1952); Denver Bank v. Commissioners, 105 Colo. 366, 98 P.2d 283 (1940); Denver Railway Co. v. Glodt, 67 Colo. 115, 186 P. 904 (1919); Pueblo v....
To continue reading
Request your trial-
La Plata Elec. Ass'n, Inc. v. Cummins, 85SC82
... ... Colorado Dept. of Highways, 170 Colo. 484, 494, 463 P.2d 448, 52 (1969). Accord State Dept. of Highways v. Davis, 626 P.2d 661, 664-65 ... ...
-
Cohen v. City of Hartford
... ... received a grant of $2.45 million from the state of Connecticut to help defray the cost of certain ... power regulate travel upon the public highways cannot be doubted." Silver v. Silver, 108 Conn ... for a healthy City"; Hartford Planning Dept., Downtown Development Plan (1984) p. 1; the ... of Highways v. Davis, 626 P.2d 661, 664 (Colo.1981); including the ... ...
-
Schliem v. State
... ... facilities for connection with [nonabutting] highways [.]" Id. at 23839, 136 N.W. at 99 (emphasis added). Thus, ... of Hwys. v. Davis, 626 P.2d 661, 665 (Colo.1981) (en banc); Palm Beach Cty ... ...
-
State v. Miller
... ... Davis , 480 N.W.2d 720, 725 (N.D. 1992) ("An owner whose property ... reasonable facilities for connection with those highways in which he has no special rights." Hyde v ... Minn ., Dak ... ...
-
Tcl - Eminent Domain Law in Colorado - Part Ii: Just Compensation - November 2006 - Government and Administrative Law
...writing. 73. Keller v. Miller, 165 P. 774 (Colo. 1917); Marilyn Hickey Ministries, supra note 72. 74. State Dept. of Highways v. Davis, 626 P.2d 661 (Colo. 1981); Troiano v. Colorado Dept. of Highways, 463 P.2d 448 (Colo. 1969); Claassen v. City and County of Denver, 30 P.3d 710 (Colo. App.......
-
Drafting Condemnation Clauses for Leases in Colorado-issues and Strategies
...Non-Compensable Items, " infra, regarding claims for relocation benefits on termination. [32] See, e.g., State Dep't of Highways v. Davis, 626 P.2d 661, 664 (Colo. 1981). [33] See Senn, supra note 3 at 24-11. [34] See, e.g., C.J.I. 30:32 (interpretation of an ambiguous term in a contract); ......
-
The Colorado Supreme Court Redefines Compensable Damages in Condemnation Actions
...Denver Union Terminal Ry. Co. v. Glodt, 67 Colo. 115, 186 P. 904 (1919). 5. Supra, note 4. 6. See, e.g., State Dep't of Highways v. Davis, 626 P.2d 661 (Colo. 1981); Mack v. Board of County Comm'rs, 152 Colo. 300, 381 P.2d 987 (1963); Farmers' Reservoir & Irrigation Co. v. Cooper, 54 Colo. ......
-
Just Compensation in Condemnation Cases
...30. 32. Hayutin v. Colorado State Dept. of Highways, 485 P.2d 896, 899 (Colo. 1971). 33. Id. at 900; State Dept. of Highways v. Davis, 626 P.2d 661, 664-65 (Colo. 1981). 34. Davis, supra, note 33 at 665. 35. Id. 36. LaPlata, supra, note 23 at 700. Column Ed.: Charles J. Kall, Denver---861-7......