Water District No. 1 of Johnson County v. Prairie Center Development, L.L.C.
375 P.3d 304
| Kan. | 2016Background
- Water District No. 1 of Johnson County (WaterOne) filed an EDPA eminent domain petition to condemn permanent water main easements and temporary construction easements across 10 tracts owned in fee by Prairie Center Development, L.L.C.
- The petition described takings as “[s]ubject to existing easements of record.” Appraisers were appointed, awards were made, and compensation paid to Prairie Center; no appeal by WaterOne or Prairie Center is in the record.
- D.P. and Wanda Bonham and their trust (the Bonhams), who were not parties to the condemnation, owned a private easement (Stonecrest Road) across Tract 16A and filed an appeal plus a motion to void, claiming WaterOne’s petition was statutorily defective for failing to name or notify them under the EDPA.
- WaterOne maintained it never sought to condemn or interfere with the Bonhams’ easement and therefore had no duty to name or notify them; its petition’s language limited the taking to interests “subject to existing easements of record.”
- The district court denied the Bonhams’ motion to void, concluding WaterOne did not take the easement; the Bonhams appealed. The Supreme Court of Kansas affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Bonhams' Argument | WaterOne's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the district court had jurisdiction to hear a nonparty easement-holder’s statutory-defect challenge to an EDPA petition | Bonhams: City of Wichita permits nonparty landowners to raise statutory defects in the condemnation proceeding | WaterOne: District court lacked jurisdiction because Bonhams were not parties and WaterOne did not cross-appeal | Held: Court had jurisdiction to consider the narrow statutory-defect claim (City of Wichita authority governs) |
| Whether WaterOne’s petition was facially defective for failing to name/notify the easement holder under K.S.A. 26‑502/26‑503 | Bonhams: Petition necessarily took/interfered with their easement, so they should have been named/notified | WaterOne: Petition expressly preserved existing easements (“subject to existing easements of record”); it never sought the Bonhams’ easement | Held: Petition was not defective on its face — WaterOne did not condemn the Bonhams’ easement and thus had no duty to name/notice them |
| Whether parol evidence (project plans) was improperly used to determine the extent of the taking | Bonhams: District court relied on project plans outside the petition to conclude no taking | WaterOne: Petition (and appraiser’s report) controls extent of taking; any parol evidence was invited by Bonhams and harmless | Held: No reversible error — petition controlled; references to plans were either invited or harmless and did not alter the petition’s plain language |
| Whether easement holders are categorically entitled to EDPA notice even when their easement is not being condemned | Bonhams: Easement owners should receive notice and compensation when their rights are affected | WaterOne: EDPA applies to easements when taken; here easement was not taken, so notice not required | Held: Court did not adopt a rule excluding easement holders from EDPA notice generally; rather, notice is required when the condemnor seeks to take an easement — here no taking occurred |
Key Cases Cited
- Concerned Citizens, United, Inc. v. Kansas Power & Light Co., 215 Kan. 218 (1974) (EDPA is the sole statutory avenue for exercise of eminent domain)
- Miller v. Bartle, 283 Kan. 108 (2007) (EDPA proceedings are narrowly focused on authority to take and just compensation)
- City of Wichita v. Meyer, 262 Kan. 534 (1997) (unnamed landowners may raise statutory defects in condemnation proceedings)
- City of Mission Hills v. Sexton, 284 Kan. 414 (2007) (petition and appraiser’s report define extent of taking; parol evidence cannot be used to alter it)
- Murray v. Kansas Dept. of Transportation, 239 Kan. 25 (1986) (condemnor’s discretionary selection of what to take is subject to review only for fraud, bad faith, or abuse of discretion)
- Kansas Gas & Electric Co. v. Will Investments, Inc., 261 Kan. 125 (1996) (owner of retained easement may be entitled to compensation when condemnor takes that easement)
- Dotson v. State Highway Commission, 198 Kan. 671 (1967) (unnamed owners may join in appeal to determine sufficiency of award for all interests in condemned tract)