Becker v. Burleigh County
924 N.W.2d 393
| N.D. | 2019Background
- Fox Island subdivision streets were dedicated "to the public use forever" on an April 5, 1994 plat, which the Burleigh County Board accepted and recorded.
- Repeated Missouri River flooding led the Burleigh County Water Resource District (BCWRD) to select a levee plan that included raising subdivision road grades 1–2 feet as part of flood mitigation.
- About 80% of affected landowners approved a special assessment district; in Feb 2018 Burleigh County granted the District an easement to construct and maintain an earthen levee including roadway grade raises.
- Several abutting landowners sued in March 2018 seeking to enjoin the project, claiming the 1994 dedication conveyed only travel easements (fee to center retained), the County exceeded authority by granting the easement, and asserting an inverse condemnation claim.
- The district court granted summary judgment for defendants, denied injunctive relief, dismissed inverse condemnation as premature, and taxed $18,756.75 costs against the plaintiffs.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Whether plaintiffs had to exhaust administrative remedies before seeking an injunction | Plaintiffs impliedly argued judicial relief was available without administrative appeal | Defendants argued plaintiffs should have appealed BCWRD administrative decision first | Court: No exhaustion required because plaintiffs challenged legality of the easement (a legal, not discretionary, issue) | |
| Whether raising street grades for flood control is within scope of the 1994 dedication | Plaintiffs: Dedication limited to travel/transportation; flood control is outside that use | Defendants: Grade raises are consistent with street uses (alter/maintain) and municipal improvements | Court: Raising road grade is consistent with the primary public use; dedication covers such improvements | |
| Nature of the 1994 dedication and effect on title (statutory grant vs. mere easement) | Plaintiffs: Dedication did not meet statutory platting formalities, so should be treated as common-law easement; abutters retain fee to center | Plaintiffs challenged County proof of statutory requirements | Defendants: Plat was recorded and presumed regular; County assumed township role; statutory dedication transferred fee to public | Court: Dedication was statutory; fee title vested in the public, so abutters’ fee-to-center claims fail |
| Whether inverse condemnation claim ripe now | Plaintiffs: Project constitutes taking requiring compensation | Defendants: No compensable taking yet because public holds fee and no present loss established | Court: Inverse condemnation premature; no taking accrued under statute |
Key Cases Cited
- Donovan v. Allert, 11 N.D. 289, 91 N.W. 441 (1902) (primary use of streets is travel; limits on secondary uses considered)
- Dahms v. Nodak Mut. Ins. Co., 2018 ND 263 (2018) (summary judgment standard and review)
- Winnie Dev. LLLP v. Reveling, 2018 ND 47 (2018) (distinction between statutory and common-law dedication; fee vests in public under statutory dedication)
- State v. Wilkie, 2017 ND 142 (2017) (plat interpreted as easement for public use; addressed limits on retained property rights)
- Hager v. City of Devils Lake, 2009 ND 180 (2009) (right to compensation accrues when property is taken; inverse condemnation accrual)
- Medical Arts Clinic, P.C. v. Franciscan Initiatives, Inc., 531 N.W.2d 289 (N.D. 1995) (exhaustion of administrative remedies doctrine)