Schroeder Investments, L.C. v. Edwards
2013 UT 25
| Utah | 2013Background
- UDOT owns a detention pond parcel in Provo adjacent to Schroeder Investments’ land.
- Schroeder filed a condemnation action to obtain a 24-foot road-access easement to its planned self-storage facility.
- UDOT sought summary judgment under the “more necessary public use” rule (Utah Code § 78B-6-504(1)(d)).
- Schroeder conceded UDOT’s pond use is more necessary but urged a compatible-uses exception to allow coexistence.
- District court granted summary judgment for UDOT, ruling the compatible-uses exception did not apply because UDOT’s use occupied the land.
- Supreme Court affirmed, rejecting Schroeder’s broad compensation-based compatible-use theory as incompatible with statute and caselaw.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a compatible-use exception exists for this case | Schroeder argues two uses can coexist with compensation. | UDOT argues no compatible-use exception applies unless land not fully dedicated. | Compatible-use exception not recognized here. |
| Whether the more-necessary public-use rule governs despite proposed coexistence | Schroeder contends the road and pond are compatible, so not more necessary. | UDOT argues the pond occupies the parcel, leaving nothing to condemn for the road. | More-necessary public use governs; pond dominates the parcel. |
| Whether compensation can render incompatible uses compatible | Schroeder would compensate to modify pond to allow road. | Caselaw does not permit compensation to substitute for statutory more-necessary analysis. | Compensation cannot create a compatible-use exception under the statute. |
| Whether the court should adopt public-policy arguments to create a broader rule | Schroeder argues policy favors more public uses on a parcel. | Court must apply the statute, not policy, and avoid serial takings. | Policy cannot override clear statutory text. |
Key Cases Cited
- Monetaire Mining Co. v. Columbus Rexall Consolidated Mines Co., 174 P. 172 (Utah 1918) (unused capacity can justify condemnation when compatible with first use)
- Postal Telegraph Cable Co. of Utah v. Oregon Short-Line Railroad Co., 65 P. 735 (Utah 1901) (idle land may be condemned for new public use if compatible without interfering with railroad)
- Freeman Gulch Mining Co. v. Kennecott Copper Corp., 119 F.2d 16 (10th Cir. 1941) (compensation discussed in context of compatible-use doctrine)