Water Dist. No. 1 of Johnson Cnty. v. Prairie Ctr. Dev., L.L.C.

• Decision Date: 10 June 2016
• Docket Number: No. 112,973,112,973
• Citation: 375 P.3d 304,304 Kan. 603
• Parties: Water District No. 1 of Johnson County, Kansas, Appellee, v. Prairie Center Development, L.L.C., et al., Defendants, and D.P. Bonham and Wanda Bonham, Individually, and as Trustees of the D.P. and Wanda Bonham Trust, Appellants.
• Court: Kansas Supreme Court

304 Kan. 603

375 P.3d 304

Water District No. 1 of Johnson County, Kansas, Appellee,

v. Prairie Center Development, L.L.C., et al., Defendants,andD.P. Bonham and Wanda Bonham, Individually, and as Trustees of the D.P. and Wanda Bonham Trust, Appellants.

No. 112,973

Supreme Court of Kansas.

Opinion filed June 10, 2016.

Lance Y. Kinzer, of Schlagel Kinzer, LLC, of Olathe, argued the cause and was on the briefs for appellant.

Paul G. Schepers, of Orrick & Erskine, LLP, of Overland Park, argued the cause and Timothy P. Orrick, of the same firm, was with him on the brief for appellee.

The opinion of the court was delivered by Luckert

, J.:

Water District No. 1 of Johnson County, Kansas (referred to by the parties as WaterOne) filed an eminent domain petition in the district court seeking to condemn 10 tracts of land “[s]ubject to existing easements of record.” Prairie Center Development, L.L.C., owned each of the tracts in fee simple. After the district court granted the petition, D.P. and Wanda Bonham and the D.P. and Wanda Bonham Trust (hereinafter the Bonhams)—who were not parties to the condemnation proceeding—filed both an appeal of the condemnation award and a motion to void the district court's order. The Bonhams owned an easement in one of the 10 condemned tracts, and they argued that WaterOne necessarily took their easement without complying with the Eminent Domain Procedure Act (EDPA) as to their easement. See K.S.A. 2015 Supp. 26–501 et seq.

After hearing arguments, the district court denied the Bonhams' motion to void, concluding that WaterOne did not condemn the Bonhams' easement. We affirm the district court's decision.

Facts and Procedural Background

WaterOne's plan was to install “a water pump station, a reservoir and system of transmission and distribution mains in Johnson County, Kansas.” To complete this project, WaterOne exercised its eminent domain power to condemn permanent water main easements and temporary construction easements in the 10 tracts of land on and around which the project was to be constructed. Prairie Center Development, L.L.C., was the owner of the 10 tracts. In February 2014, WaterOne filed an eminent domain petition in the district court against Prairie Center Development and “any unknown persons claiming an interest in or in possession of the property described herein.”

About a month later, the district court approved WaterOne's petition and appointed appraisers to conduct a valuation of the land. Thereafter, the appraisers determined just compensation for the condemned lands, and the district court ordered WaterOne to pay the awards. The record does not reflect that WaterOne or Prairie Center Development filed an appeal.

Instead, the Bonhams, who were not parties to the proceedings, filed both an appeal of the award and a motion to void the condemnation. Specifically, the Bonhams argued the condemnation relating to one of the tracts—Tract 16A—was void for noncompliance with the EDPA. The Bonhams possessed their own easement in Tract 16A and argued that WaterOne failed to name them in the condemnation petition or send them the proper statutory notice. In response, WaterOne argued it did not have to name the Bonhams or give them notice under the EDPA because it did not intend to take or interfere with their easement. After considering the motion in a hearing, the district court denied the Bonhams' motion to void. The Bonhams timely appealed to this court, which has jurisdiction under K.S.A. 2015 Supp. 26-504

(“Appeals to the supreme court may be taken from any final order under the provisions of [the EDPA].”).

Analysis

In Kansas, the EDPA provides the only avenue through which the government can exercise its eminent domain power. See K.S.A. 2015 Supp. 26–501 et seq.

; Concerned Citizens, United, Inc. v. Kansas Power & Light Co. , 215 Kan. 218, 227, 231, 523 P.2d 755 (1974). Importantly, “ ‘[a] statute which confers the right to exercise the power of eminent domain is to be strictly construed in light of the objectives and the purposes sought to be attained by its enactment.’ ” Miller v. Bartle , 283 Kan. 108, 113, 150 P.3d 1282 (2007) (quoting Nat'l Compressed Steel Corp. v. Unified Gov't of Wyandotte County/Kansas City , 272 Kan. 1239, Syl. ¶ 5, 38 P.3d 723 [2002] ).

The Bonhams allege WaterOne failed to comply with the EDPA. As relevant to this appeal, we conduct unlimited review over matters of jurisdiction, the interpretation of statutes, and the interpretation of written instruments. Cady v. Schroll , 298 Kan. 731, 734, 317 P.3d 90 (2014)

; Frazier v. Goudschaal , 296 Kan. 730, 743, 295 P.3d 542 (2013) ; Liggatt v. Employers Mut. Casualty Co. , 273 Kan. 915, 917, 46 P.3d 1120 (2002) ; City of Wichita v. Meyer , 262 Kan. 534, 539, 939 P.2d 926 (1997). A brief overview of a proceeding under the EDPA puts the Bonhams' claims in context and clarifies the objectives and purposes of the EDPA.

1. This action is governed by the nature of condemnation proceedings.

Eminent domain—the power to take private lands for public use—is essential and inherently governmental. See K.S.A. 2015 Supp. 26–501(c)(2)

; Concerned Citizens , 215 Kan. at 226–27, 523 P.2d 755 ; 26 Am. Jur. 2d, Eminent Domain § 4. But however essential, the government cannot exercise its inherent power to take land for free: The government must justly pay for the land it takes. K.S.A. 26–513(a) (“Private property shall not be taken or damaged for public use without just compensation.”).

In Kansas, provisions of the EDPA control the proceedings to the extent the provisions address an issue. In an appeal from an eminent domain award, the code of civil procedure applies. K.S.A. 2015 Supp. 26–508(a)

(an eminent domain appeal “shall be tried as any other civil action”); Neighbor v. Westar Energy, Inc. , 301 Kan. 916, 920, 349 P.3d 469 (2015).

Eminent domain proceedings begin when an entity seeking to condemn land files a petition in the district court. K.S.A. 2015 Supp. 26–501(b)

. Under the EDPA, the entity's petition must include:

“(1) the authority for and the purpose of the taking; (2) a description of each lot, parcel or tract of land and the nature of the interest to be taken; (3) insofar as their interests are to be taken (a) the name of any owner and all lienholders of record, and (b) the name of any party in possession.... No defect in form which does not impair substantial rights of the parties shall invalidate any proceeding.” K.S.A. 26–502

.

In addition, K.S.A. 2015 Supp. 26–503

requires that notice be given to “each interested party as named in K.S.A. 26–502,” that is, “any owner,” “lienholders of record,” and “any party in possession.”

Once the petition is filed, the judge must determine from the petition itself (1) whether the entity “has the power of eminent domain” and (2) whether “the taking is necessary to the [entity's] lawful corporate purposes.” K.S.A. 2015 Supp. 26–504

. When the judge makes those findings in favor of the government entity, appraisers are appointed to conduct a valuation of the land the entity seeks to take. K.S.A. 2015 Supp. 26–504 ; K.S.A. 2015 Supp. 26–505. Ultimately, those appraisers file a report on the amount of compensation that is just. K.S.A. 2015 Supp. 26–506. Then, to proceed with the taking, the entity must pay that amount within 30 days of the appraiser's report. K.S.A. 2015 Supp. 26–507 ; Miller , 283 Kan. at 113, 150 P.3d 1282. This court has characterized these proceedings as an “inquest”—an investigation into exactly how much the government owes. Indeed, the proceedings are narrow and not “ ‘a forum for litigation of the right to exercise the power of eminent domain nor the extent thereof.’ ” Miller , 283 Kan. at 113–14, 150 P.3d 1282.

Here, WaterOne filed its eminent domain petition in the district court. As to the extent of its taking, WaterOne sought to condemn temporary construction easements and permanent water main easements in 10 tracts of land owned by Prairie Center Development in fee simple. The district court appointed appraisers, the appraisers filed reports, and from those reports Prairie Center Development received compensation. There is nothing in this appeal suggesting that WaterOne did not fully comply with the EDPA as to the owners of the land—Prairie Center Development.

The EDPA does provide that if any party is not satisfied with the amount awarded in the appraiser's report the party can appeal to the district court for a trial de novo. But even the trial de novo is narrow: “The only issue to be determined ... shall be the compensation required by K.S.A. 26–513

.” K.S.A. 2015 Supp. 26–508(a). In short, EDPA proceedings are intended to be quickly resolved, only concerning (1) the authority to take and (2) just compensation for the taking. Litigation of collateral issues is relegated to other civil actions. Miller , 283 Kan. at 114, 150 P.3d 1282 ; State Highway Commission v. Bullard , 208 Kan. 558, 561–62, 493 P.2d 196 (1972). From the record here, it does not appear that Prairie Center Development or WaterOne filed an appeal under K.S.A. 2015 Supp. 26–508 to challenge the amount of compensation awarded.

What makes this case unique is that the Bonhams—who were never parties to WaterOne's action—filed an appeal. WaterOne had taken a permanent water main easement in Tract 16A, which is a tract of land on which the Bonhams held their own easement. And the Bonhams' easement had become a private roadway known as Stonecrest Road.

Soon after filing the appeal, the Bonhams also filed a motion to void the proceedings for statutory defects. Essentially, the Bonhams claimed WaterOne could not possibly take the permanent water main easement and use it to install a pipeline in Tract 16A without interfering with Stonecrest Road—the Bonhams' easement. So the Bonhams argued WaterOne did not comply with the EDPA's petition requirements because WaterOne took the Bonhams' interest without listing the Bonhams as parties in the petition. See K.S.A. 2015 Supp. 26–503

. Additionally,...