Miller v. Preisser
284 P.3d 290
| Kan. | 2012Background
- KDOT condemned Tract 47 (and related easements) in Pratt County as part of a Highway 54/400 improvement, creating a partial taking with a separate adjacent tract (Tract 38) involved in the same overall Short 80 property.
- Landowners argued for assemblage of Tracts 47 and 38 to value Tract 47 as an integrated economic unit based on highest and best use.
- District court excluded assemblage evidence due to lack of unity of ownership and because Tract 38 had already been compensated separately, prompting appeal.
- Landowners separately claimed loss of access to Highway 54/400 and argued a change in traffic flow was a compensable taking or unreasonable police power action.
- The court separated right-of-access and traffic-regulation theories, concluded no direct access was taken and thus no compensable taking for access, and dismissed the traffic-regulation reasonableness claim for lack of jurisdiction, remanding on assemblage evidence.
- Ownership of the two parcels (Short 80) became split due to divorce and later title changes, with Tract 47 owned by Preisser and Tract 38 by Preisser separately at the time of taking.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether assemblage evidence is available to value Tract 47. | Landowners: joinder with Tract 38 is reasonably probable and admissible. | KDOT: unity of ownership required; assemblage not admissible. | Yes; assemblage evidence is admissible if there is a reasonable probability of joinder. |
| Whether loss of highway access to US 54/400 is a compensable taking. | Loss of direct access diminishes Tract 47’s value. | No direct access to Highway 54/400 existed; only indirect access through 130th Ave; not compensable. | Not a compensable taking; Tract 47 never had direct access to Highway 54/400. |
| Whether regulation of traffic flow constitutes a taking or is merely police power. | If unreasonable, could be a taking. | Regulation of traffic flow is police power and not a taking; reasonableness affects validity but not compensation. | Regulation of traffic flow is not a taking; sua sponte jurisdiction issue dismissed. |
| Whether the court has subject matter jurisdiction to review reasonableness of traffic regulation in an eminent domain appeal. | Challenge the reasonableness of police power action. | Jurisdiction limited to compensation; noncompensation issues barred. | No jurisdiction; dismiss for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. |
Key Cases Cited
- City of Wichita v. Eisenring, 269 Kan. 767 (Kan. 2000) (admissibility of evidence bearing on market value in eminent domain)
- McDonald’s Corp. v. City of Wichita, 266 Kan. 708 (Kan. 1999) (distinction between right of access and regulation of traffic flow; not a taking)
- Korytkowski v. City of Ottawa, 283 Kan. 122 (Kan. 2007) (inverse condemnation; regulation of traffic flow must be reasonable; no taking if indirect access)
- Zimmerman v. Board of Wabaunsee County Comm’rs, 293 Kan. 332 (Kan. 2011) (reasonableness of government action raises due process, not takings)