Barton v. City of Norwalk
161 A.3d 1264
| Conn. | 2017Background
- Barton owned a commercial/residential building at 70 South Main and purchased an adjacent lot (65 South Main) to create 44 parking spaces required for zoning compliance.
- In 2002 Norwalk condemned 65 South Main to build a police station and paid Barton $127,000; Barton later obtained $310,000 in a separate just-compensation proceeding for 65 South Main as having a highest-and-best use as mixed-use development.
- Loss of the dedicated parking allegedly caused severe vacancy and marketing problems at 70 South Main: leased space dropped from ~90%+ pre-taking to single digits, and building value fell by over 80% per plaintiff’s appraiser.
- Barton sued for inverse condemnation of 70 South Main, claiming the taking of 65 South Main substantially destroyed his use and enjoyment of 70 South Main; the trial court awarded damages and prejudgment interest.
- The Appellate Court affirmed; the City appealed, arguing (1) 70 South Main retained significant value and income so no compensable taking, and (2) Barton was judicially estopped from asserting he would have continued to use 65 South Main as parking after earlier claiming its highest and best use was mixed-use.
Issues
| Issue | Barton’s Argument | Norwalk’s Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Did the taking of 65 South Main amount to inverse condemnation of 70 South Main? | The loss of parking substantially destroyed use/enjoyment of 70 South Main and reduced value >80%, constituting a taking. | 70 South Main retained economic value, continued to generate income and had substantial occupancy (church), so no substantial destruction. | Court: Finding of substantial destruction supported by evidence (vacancy, marketing failure, >80% value loss); inverse condemnation established. |
| Does retention of some economic value preclude an inverse condemnation finding? | Retention of limited residual value does not defeat a taking once plaintiff shows substantial destruction of use/enjoyment; damages measured by before-after market value. | Remaining value and some tenants show property not practically confiscated; therefore no taking. | Court: Some remaining value is compatible with substantial destruction; plaintiff entitled to compensation based on value loss. |
| Is Barton judicially estopped from claiming 65 South Main would have been used as parking given prior assertion that its highest and best use was mixed-use? | Owner may claim highest-and-best use for valuation in eminent domain yet in fact use the lot as parking; asserting both is not clearly inconsistent. | Earlier position that highest-and-best use was mixed-use conflicts with present claim that lot would have remained parking; trial court adopted earlier position, so estoppel applies. | Court: No clear inconsistency; highest-and-best-use testimony concerns market value, not a promise of actual use; trial court correctly declined to invoke judicial estoppel. |
Key Cases Cited
- Rural Water Co. v. Zoning Board of Appeals, 287 Conn. 282 (discusses standard for inverse condemnation and substantial destruction)
- Bristol v. Tilcon Minerals, Inc., 284 Conn. 55 (inverse condemnation requires total economic destruction or substantial destruction of use)
- Caruso v. Zoning Board of Appeals, 320 Conn. 315 (when reasonable use exists there is no practical confiscation; parallels takings analysis)
- Dougan v. Dougan, 301 Conn. 361 (judicial estoppel explained as equitable doctrine and its discretionary application)
- New Hampshire v. Maine, 532 U.S. 742 (judicial estoppel principles on preventing parties from changing positions to suit exigencies)