Victor Co. v. State
| Decision Date | 26 March 1971 |
| Docket Number | No. 42534,42534 |
| Citation | 186 N.W.2d 168,290 Minn. 40 |
| Parties | VICTOR COMPANY, Inc., Appellant, v. STATE of Minnesota, by Douglas M. Head, its Attorney General, et al., Respondents. |
| Court | Minnesota Supreme Court |
Syllabus by the Court.
Where an off-street parking lot required for use by employees and customers of a manufacturing plant is taken for highway purposes in a state condemnation proceeding, denial of a petition for an alternative writ of mandamus seeking to compel the state to institute condemnation proceedings to assess claimed consequential damages to the manufacturing plant is proper because:
1. The petitioner lacks standing to assert such claim, having conveyed title to its manufacturing plant before the filing of the commissioners' award, and before title to the lands taken had vested in the state, without reservation of the right in the deed of conveyance to claim consequential damages resulting from the taking of the parking lot.
2. The petitioner failed to pursue the remedy expressly provided by law for taking an appeal to the district court for a determination of the owner's claim to consequential damages to the manufacturing plant and a jury reassessment of the damages awarded by commissioners appointed by the court.
Feinberg, Mirviss, Meyers, Schumacher & Malmon, Minneapolis, for appellant.
Warren Spannaus, Atty. Gen., Eric B. Schultz, Deputy Atty. Gen., Steven A. Maurer, Sp. Asst. Atty. Gen., St. Paul, for respondents.
Heard before KNUTSON, C.J., and NELSON, OTIS, ROGOSHESKE, and ODDEN, JJ.
Appeal from an order denying a landowner's petition for an alternative writ of mandamus seeking to compel the state to institute condemnation proceedings to assess consequential damages claimed suffered by reason of the state's taking of petitioner's parking lot for highway purposes.
Prior to the condemnation proceedings instituted by the state, petitioner was the owner of real property in the city of Minneapolis on which was situated its manufacturing plant and a parking lot located about one-half block from the manufacturing plant providing off-street parking for its employees and customers as required by a city ordinance. On August 15, 1966, the district court granted the state's petition to take the parking lot for highway use, and commissioners were appointed to assess the resulting damages.
During hearings conducted by the commissioners and pursuant to the state's objection, the commissioners refused to consider the owner's claim that the market value of the manufacturing plant property was diminished by the taking of the parking lot. Thereupon, on October 26, petitioner by motion sought an order of the district court directing the commissioners to consider the parking lot and the manufacturing plant 'as one unit' in making their award of damages for the taking of the parking lot. In a memorandum accompanying denial of this motion on December 12, 1966, the district court observed:
During the pendency of the dispute, petitioner negotiated a sale of the manufacturing plant, title to which was transferred to an undisclosed purchaser sometime in December 1966. Although petitioner claims that the sale price therefor was substantially less than it would have obtained if the equivalent of its prior off-street parking facilities had been included, it is admitted that the deed conveying the title made no provision for reserving to the owner-seller a right to claim consequential damages asserted in the condemnation proceedings then pending.
On April 26, 1967, the commission awarded $52,000 for the taking of the parking lot without specifying, pursuant to Minn.St. 117.08, that any part thereof represented consequential damages to the manufacturing plant. 1 Pursuant to § 117.20 subd. 4, authorizing either party to appeal to the district court 'from any award of damages * * * or from any omission to award damages,' the state appealed from the commissioners' award. The petitioner took no appeal. On March 14, 1969, by written stipulation, the parties compromised and settled the dispute as to damages claimed for $50,000. This written settlement stipulation provided that payment and acceptance 'shall constitute the full accord and satisfaction of any and all claims for damages * * * occasioned by the taking (of the parking lot) hereby intending to forever settle any and all claims as and for the taking of said parcel.' 2 Subsequently, the owner filed this petition for an alternative writ of mandamus seeking to compel the state to institute condemnation proceedings to determine and assess its claim for consequential damages to the manufacturing plant. On April 8, 1970, the district court issued its order denying the petition, and this appeal followed.
The principal reason for the court's denial of the petition is that petitioner had no standing to assert its claim, since it had sold the manufacturing plant, without reserving 'the right to any award money to be paid for damage to the plant resulting from the taking of the parking lot.' The court reasoned that the sale was completed prior to the vesting of title to the parking lot in the state and the absence of a reservation of owner-seller's claim for consequential damages in the deed of conveyance divested the petitioner of any beneficial interest in the manufacturing plant premises and hence precluded any right to assert such claim by mandamus proceedings.
We agree with the trial court. There is no question that a physical taking of a tract of land may inflict damages to land of an owner which is not taken. Such damages are generally referred to as consequential damages and are expressly required to be paid by our constitution, which provides:
'Private property shall not be taken, Destroyed or damaged for public use without just compensation therefor, first paid or secured.' (Italics supplied.) Minn.Const. art. 1, § 13.
A classic example of consequential damages to property involved in a taking occurs when a part of an owner's entire tract is taken with a resulting diminished market value to the part not taken. It is surely conceivable in a case such as this that the taking of an off-street parking lot required to be provided by city ordinance could have the effect of diminishing the market value of the manufacturing plant it was provided to serve. It must be understood, however, that a claim for consequential...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Brooks Inv. Co. v. City of Bloomington
... ... owned it by virtue of the conveyance from Berglund at the time the condemnation proceeding was completed? Putting it more precisely, we might state the question thus: Where a city constructs a street across a parcel of land which is thereafter sold by its original owner to another person prior to ... Because of its failure to note this crucial distinction, Brooks' reliance on Victor Co. Inc. v. State, by Head, 290 Minn. 40, 44, 186 N.W.2d 168, 172 (1971), is misplaced. There, we said: ... '* * * (P)etitioner divested itself of ... ...
-
State by Humphrey v. Strom
...that fairly might be brought forward and reasonably be given substantial weight in such bargaining."). See also Victor Co. v. State, 290 Minn. 40, 44, 186 N.W.2d 168, 172 (1971) (award "considered not as an independent item of loss but as an element of damage affecting the market value of t......
-
City of Mishawaka on Behalf of Dept. of Redevelopment v. Fred W. Bubb Funeral Chapel, Inc.
...Sauvageau v. Hjelle, (1973) N.D., 213 N.W.2d 381; State Highway Comm. v. Renfro, (1973) 161 Mont. 251, 505 P.2d 403; Victor Co. v. State, (1971) 290 Minn. 40, 186 N.W.2d 168; DiVirgilio v. State, (1968) Fla., 205 So.2d 317; Petition of Mackie, (1967) 8 Mich.App. 299, 154 N.W.2d 631; Ives v.......
-
M & R Inv. Co., Inc. v. State ex rel. Dept. of Transp.
...Situated in Orange County, State of Texas, 680 F.2d 388 (5th Cir.1982), reh'g denied, 685 F.2d 1385 (5th Cir.1982); Victor Co. v. State, 290 Minn. 40, 186 N.W.2d 168 (1971); 4A Nichols, above, § 14.26 at 14.649. Some jurisdictions hold that the identification of the large parcel is a questi......