Ada County Highway District v. Brooke View, Inc.
395 P.3d 357
Idaho2017Background
- Brooke View owned a 20‑acre property with an ornate entrance wall; ACHD condemned 1,566.07 sq ft and obtained a temporary construction easement adjacent to that wall for a road/sidewalk/stormwater project.
- ACHD offered just compensation (~$8,500); Brooke View rejected and ACHD took possession after court order; construction began and later cracks/damage to the wall were discovered.
- Brooke View pursued compensation in the eminent domain proceeding for the cost to repair the wall (jury awarded ~$141,000 for cure; total judgment ~$148,390 plus prejudgment interest and large attorney’s fees).
- ACHD argued damages occurring during construction are not recoverable as part of just compensation and must be pursued in tort; district court allowed recovery as part of eminent domain and limited tort evidence.
- Idaho Supreme Court vacated the judgment and fee award, holding physical damages accruing during construction are not part of just compensation under I.C. § 7‑711(2)(a) and must be pursued in tort; remanded for further proceedings.
Issues
| Issue | Brooke View (Plaintiff) argument | ACHD (Defendant) argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether physical damage occurring during construction is recoverable as part of just compensation under I.C. § 7‑711(2)(a) | "Construction" includes the process; therefore physical damage during construction is compensable in eminent domain | "Construction" refers to the planned improvement (not the process); construction‑period physical damages accrue later and must be pursued in tort | Physical damages accruing during construction are not part of just compensation; they must be pursued in tort |
| Validity of jury instruction allowing recovery for construction‑caused damage without proving mechanism | Instruction properly allowed recovery for damage caused by the improvement as proposed; mechanism not required | Instruction misstates law and invites consideration of construction‑period physical damage | Instruction was erroneous and prejudicial because it allowed jury to include construction damages |
| Admission of evidence relating to events/damages during construction | Such evidence is relevant to causation and damages under eminent domain claim | Evidence of construction‑period damage is irrelevant to just compensation and should be excluded | Admission of evidence about construction‑period physical damage was error to the extent it bore on just compensation |
| Award of attorney’s fees and costs to Brooke View | Fees appropriate because Brooke View prevailed below | Fees improper if judgment vacated; also reliance on faulty scope of just compensation | Fee award vacated because Brooke View is no longer prevailing party after reversal |
Key Cases Cited
- Idaho‑Western Ry. Co. v. Columbia Conference of Evangelical Lutheran Augustana Synod, 20 Idaho 568, 119 P. 60 (1911) (holding planned improvements and their anticipated effects that reduce remainder value may be included in severance damages, but not ordinary incidental effects unless they render the remaining use specially and peculiarly injurious)
- Campbell v. Oregon‑Wash. R. & N. Co., 34 Idaho 601, 202 P. 1065 (1921) (physical damages occurring during construction accrued after issuance of summons and must be pursued in a separate action in tort)
- Ada County Highway Dist. v. Acarrequi, 105 Idaho 873, 673 P.2d 1067 (1983) (explaining framework for awarding attorney’s fees in eminent domain cases and reliance on pretrial settlement offers relative to eventual jury verdict)