Green River Motel Management of Dale, LLC v. State
957 N.E.2d 640
| Ind. Ct. App. | 2011Background
- GRMM owns 11.692 acres along US-231 near Dale; Motel 6 on parcel opened 1999.
- State relocated interchange between I-64 and US-231 west of original site, completed 2008, affecting access to Motel 6.
- State appropriated 3.983 acres on April 2, 2003; three freeholders assessed $283,550 in GRMM’s favor (July 28, 2008).
- State appraiser Gregory Abell valued the taken parcel at $288,000 (Dec. 2, 2003).
- GRMM sought summary judgment claiming the proper measure is the difference in value before/after taking, citing inverse condemnation; trial court denied.
- At trial, evidence concerned altered access, weight limits on Dale roads, and exemptions for Old US-231; verdict awarded GRMM $288,000.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether loss of access constitutes a taking as a matter of law. | GRMM argues altered access is a compensable taking. | State contends no taking since traffic flow was merely diverted. | No taking; summary judgment denied; inverse condemnation failed as a matter of law. |
| Whether the trial court abused its discretion in jury instructions on loss of access. | GRMM claims instruction was erroneous on access damages. | State argues any error was harmless given failure of inverse condemnation claim. | Harmless error; no reversible Instruction issue. |
| Whether the trial court abused its discretion in admitting Bartlett’s testimony and related evidence about weight limits and conversations with Dale Town Attorney. | GRMM alleges improper legal conclusions and hearsay. | State contends expert reliance on admissible hearsay data; testimony would rebut potential damage. | Harmless error; evidence immaterial to actual loss evidence; no reversible error. |
| Whether the weight-limit evidence was necessary to determine damages for loss of access. | GRMM argues weight limits reduced access and value. | State maintains no actual proof of restricted heavy-truck access affecting GRMM. | No actual proof of damage established; error harmless. |
Key Cases Cited
- Lingle v. Chevron U.S.A., Inc., 544 U.S. 528 (U.S. 2005) (takings require substantial deprivation of economic use under federal standard)
- Kimco of Evansville, Inc. v. State, 902 N.E.2d 206 (Ind. 2009) (inverse condemnation and traffic flow changes; no taking absent direct interference)
- Peterson v. State, 269 Ind. 340, 381 N.E.2d 83 (Ind. 1978) (direct ingress/egress interference can support compelling takings)
- Geiger & Peters v. City of Indianapolis, 196 N.E.2d 740 (Ind. 1964) (complete elimination of access can be a taking)
- Webb’s Fabulous Pharmacies, Inc. v. Beckwith, 449 U.S. 155 (U.S. 1981) (takings analysis via Fourteenth Amendment due process; textually indistinguishable state/federal clauses)