Pinnacle Enters. v. City of Papillion
286 Neb. 322
| Neb. | 2013Background
- The City of Papillion condemned portions of Pinnacle Enterprises’ property for the Schram Road project, including easements for grading/storm sewers and a parcel in fee where the City later built an iron fence abutting Pinnacle’s remaining land.
- County court appraisers awarded Pinnacle $344,215.15; Pinnacle appealed to district court challenging only the insufficiency of the award at first.
- The City twice offered to confess judgment for $500,000; Pinnacle refused and proceeded to a jury trial, which returned $432,661 in damages.
- Before the jury trial, Pinnacle filed bench (dispositive) motions arguing the City lacked statutory authority under § 19-709 to condemn for a fence and that construction of the fence constituted a second taking; the district court rejected these motions in a January 2012 order.
- Pinnacle did not appeal the January 2012 order; after the jury verdict the district court awarded Pinnacle interest, attorney/expert fees, deposition expenses, and costs. The City cross-appealed the award of interest/fees/costs.
- The Nebraska Supreme Court held (1) Pinnacle failed to timely appeal the January 2012 final order and therefore the court lacked jurisdiction to reach the fence authority/second-taking claims, and (2) the City’s $500,000 offer to confess judgment was invalid in condemnation proceedings, so the award of interest, fees, expenses, and costs to Pinnacle was proper.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the City had statutory authority under § 19-709 to condemn property for a fence | Pinnacle: § 19-709 did not authorize condemning right-of-way to construct a fence | City: statute authorized necessary appurtenant improvements including fence-related taking | Court: Ruled the bench order finding authority was a final, appealable order; Pinnacle failed to timely appeal, so court lacks jurisdiction to address the merits |
| Whether the City’s construction of the fence was a second taking | Pinnacle: Fence construction limited access and amounted to a separate taking | City: Fence was part of the condemned project, not a separate taking | Court: Bench order rejecting second-taking claim was final; Pinnacle’s failure to timely appeal precludes review |
| Whether the City’s written offer to confess judgment was effective under § 25-901 in this condemnation appeal | Pinnacle: Offer valid and relevant to fee/cost calculus | City: Offer valid; should defeat post-verdict awards because verdict did not exceed offer | Court: § 25-901 applies to actions for recovery of money only; condemnation is for recovery of land (not money only), so the City’s offer to confess judgment was invalid |
| Whether Pinnacle was entitled to interest, attorney/expert fees, expenses, and costs | Pinnacle: Jury verdict exceeded appraisers’ award, entitling it to interest and statutory fee awards | City: Because its offer to confess judgment exceeded the verdict, Pinnacle should not get interest/fees/costs | Court: With the offer invalid, statutory provisions (§§ 76-711 and 76-720) apply; interest and fees awarded properly; deposition expense treated as costs and award affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- SID No. 1 v. Nebraska Pub. Power Dist., 253 Neb. 917 (discussion of when orders in condemnation that eliminate a defense are final and appealable)
- Wooden v. County of Douglas, 275 Neb. 971 (condemnation appeal is a continuation of the original action; district appeal is de novo)
- Armstrong v. County of Dixon, 282 Neb. 623 (describing de novo nature of district court condemnation appeals)
- Bunnell v. Burlington Northern RR. Co., 247 Neb. 743 (treatment of deposition expenses as costs)
- Keller v. State, 184 Neb. 853 (case law supporting award of costs in eminent domain context)