*1 G, INC., Plaintiff-Respondent, CANYON HIGHWAY DISTRICT 4, Defendant-Appellant.
NO.
No. 28128. Idaho,
Supreme Court of
Boise, May 2003 Term.
July *2 (Patricia), (Martin) and Patricia Galvin
vin wife, only the shareholders are husband G, owning & G’s each 50% of C of C & Road, winding The Old Middleton shares. curves, north very sharp ran road with two edge along the of C & G’s and south western 1980’s, early to mid By the property. had Middleton Road condition of the Old point that it was neces- to the deteriorated sary resurface it. At various to rebuild and early the mid 1980’s and times between 1990’s, representatives of the Martin and Highway possibility District discussed the moving the Middleton Road east so Old run- follow the section line north/south ning through property. &C G’s Canyon on a 1921 resolution Based Commissioners, County Highway District easement, believed it had a 50 foot 25 feet White, Peterson, Morrow, Gigray, Ross- side, the section line. As a result each over man, Rossman, P.A., Nye Nampa, ap- & easement, alleged Highway Dis- pellant. Gigray argued. F. III William trict assumed it could build road over Davison, Cox, Boise, Copple, Copple & crossing line C & with- section G’s respondent. Cunningham Heather A. ar- compensating & C & believed the out C G. G gued. representations regarding Highway District’s investigating the easement without further. KIDWELL, Justice. 1991, Highway contracted In late District (C G) G, Canyon Inc. & sued the surveyor mark location of a with a District) Highway (Highway District No. Road, proposed Middleton which was to New Highway for inverse condemnation after the along run the section line run- north/south through proper- District built a road &C G’s ning through property. Decem- C & G’s On ty compensating High- without C The & G. 24,1991, Highway ber District’s Board way ground District defended on the & GC (Commissioners) approved Commissioners failed to file its case within the statute of Due to construction of New Middleton Road. However, period. limitations the district easement, alleged none of the affected court found the statute of limitations was not compensated for their owners were triggered Highway until complet- District land. project, brought ed the construction C Middleton Road Construction of the New four-year & suit within the limitation G’s began January objected to 1992. Patricia period. prove district failed to construction of the road all times relevant. its other affirmative and & G was defenses District, According to the Martin damages, together awarded with costs and aspects involved in different attorney fees. The District filed project, particularly in the reloca- struction appeal. judgment of the district irrigation required by canals the con- tion of court is affirmed. road’s struction. In order to lessen the grade, Highway District asked C & G to I. along easement grant more than the 50-foot AND
FACTS
PROCEDURAL
steep
portion
of the road that traversed
BACKGROUND
property.
hill on C & G’s
C & G refused
By
request.
October
operates
owns and
a farm on 260
Canyon County,
progressed
had
acres in
Idaho. Martin Gal-
construction
point
align-
jury
began
that the New Middleton Road’s
trial
on the issue of the value of C
property were
ment and width across C & G
&
condemned
On December
By
verdict,
jury’s
established.
November
on the
based
construction
judgment in
district court entered a
favor of
*3
The
the road’s subbase.
New Middleton
$430,204.64.
C & in the amount of
On
G
1993,
May
opened
public
Road was
for
use in
21, 2002,
February
the district court entered
paving
oiling
but
was not
until
judgment awarding attorney
a
fees and costs
August 1993.
to C & G.
1997,
January
In
approached
timely
ap-
The
District
filed this
surveyor
developing
property. At
about
its
peal.
time,
that
C & G learned there was no
31,1997,
January
easement for the road. On
II.
against
seeking
C & G filed suit
the district
damages
Sep-
for inverse condemnation. On
STANDARD OF REVIEW
24, 1998, Highway
tember
District filed
The date for when a cause of action
summary
ground
judgment
motion for
on the
may
question
accrues
be a
of fact or law.
applicable four-year
statute of limita-
McDonald,
277, 279,
v.
136 Idaho
32
Jemmett
tions,
(2002),
§
ran
Idaho Code
5-224
before
(2001)
Cox,
669,
(citing
P.3d
671
Reis v.
104
18,
complaint.
C & G filed its
On November
(1982)).
434,
disput
Idaho
If no
P.2d 46
1998,
granted
the district court
exist,
ed issues of material fact
when cause
summary judgment
motion for
on
question
of action accrues is a
of law for
that,
6, 1992,
by
the basis
November
con-
by
determination
this
Id.
Court.
progressed
struction on the road had
point that C & G was aware of the nature
only
This Court will
set aside the
and extent of the
clearly
findings
district court’s
of
if
erro
fact
triggering
placing
the limitation of action and
52(a) (2002); McCray
neous.
I.R.C.P.
v. Ro
complaint beyond
four-year peri-
& G’s
C
senkrance,
509, 513,
693,
Idaho
20 P.3d
od.
(2001);
v.
re Williamson
24, 1998, & filed a
On November
G
McCall,
452, 454,
19 P.3d
reconsider, citing
motion to
additional au-
(2001).
deciding
findings
of fact
whether
thority
proposition
for the
that the statute of
erroneous,
clearly
determines
are
begin running
May
until
limitations did not
findings
supported
are
sub
whether
opened
when the road was
stantial, competent evidence. In re William
13, 1999,
January
the district court
use. On
son at
The
case, including
III.
took 3.16 acres of C & G’s
constructing
the New Middleton
ANALYSIS
20, 1999,
Road.
the district
On December
For Inverse Con-
A. C & G’s Action
court conducted a
trial on the issues of
bench
By
demnation Is Not Time Barred
District’s affirmative defenses
§
5-224 Limitation Of Ac-
I.C.
quasi
equitable estoppel,
estoppel,
tion.
January
district
waiver. On
High-
party disputes the
finding the
Neither
facts
court entered its decision
Therefore,
& filed its
way
prove any of its affir-
this case.
whether C G
District failed to
lawsuit within the stat-
inverse condemnation
mative defenses. On December
takes
where the
question
limitations is a
law over
case
ute of
project.
of a construction
exercises free review.
land
means
which this Court
damages
Farbers sued the State
the statute of limita-
I.C.
5-224 contains
resulting
construction of
their
claim.
tions for an inverse condemnation
The Farber’s claim
a road intersection.
Id.
Dep’t.
Transp.,
v.
Wadsworth
issue on
in tort and the relevant
sounded
439, 441-42,
(citing
3-4
they filed notice under
appeal was whether
Comm’rs,
McCuskey Canyon County
designated
period.
time
ITCA within the
(1996)).
§ 5-
I.C.
they could not
Id. The Farbers contended
action for ...
“[a]n
[inverse
states:
and,
damages
extent of their
there-
know the
... must be commenced within
demnation]
fore,
the notice
under the ITCA
(4) years
four
after the cause of action shall
*4
completion
construc-
triggered until
of
have accrued.”
400,
P.2d at 687.
tion. Id. at
argues
District
district
the
Farbers,
erroneously
project com-
Agreeing
relied on the
the
this Court held
with
398,
pletion
period
rule of Farber v.
102 Idaho
under the ITCA was not
the notice
(1981),
a
completed
Quasi estoppel applies tion, be un knowledge when it would of the facts and his with party it was rights, regarding conscionable to allow the to be es- whether or not compensation for the tak- change they entitled to seek topped positions to from one merely property. Plaintiff be- ing of its acquiesced they accepted or from one incorrect as- Highway lieved the quasi estoppel apply, For to benefit. Id. Highway District had an that the sertion gained party estopped to be must have either Assuming Plaintiff could easement.... advantage against party, pro some the other acquiesced held to be have disadvantage party, or duced to the other an District’s incorrect assertion that it had party the other must have been induced to Plaintiffs easement across change positions. Id. not be for Plaintiff unconscionable The district found the Dis- that the District did now assert prove trict defense of failed affirmative and that Plaintiff not have such easement quasi estoppel prove because it failed to compensation is therefore entitled position regarding taking property. took an inconsistent of its G compensa- whether or not C & G would seek Therefore, find- we affirm the district court’s tion for the ing prove that the District failed simply district court found C & G believed quasi estoppel. the elements representation that the Is Entitled To An Award Of C. C & G along owned an easement the section fine. Attorney Appeal. Fees On *6 found, assuming The district also even prevailing A condemnee is entitled District, acquiesced Highway to it attorney appeal. to an of fees on award is not now unconscionable for C & G to Jardine, State ex. Rel. Smith v. Highway assert District had no easement (1997). 1137, 1141 The compensation. and seek awarding attorney ap on rationale for fees finding regarding The district court’s peal prevailing to is so the condemnee Highway prove quasi failure es- deprived part just of condemnee is not substantial, toppel supported by competent is compensation or she is entitled to which he evidence. None of the District offi- result, under the Constitution. Id. As a C & cials testified that C & G donated or consent- condemnee, G, prevailing as is entitled to gratuitous taking property. ed to the attorney appeal. an award of fees on of Several District officials tes- moving
tified Martin was
favor of
the road.
IV.
However,
may
while Martin
have favored
CONCLUSION
road,
moving the
such an
not
attitude does
reflect donative intent or intent not to seek
private prop-
When the
takes
compensation
for C & G’s taken
erty by
means of a construction
with-
knowing Pa-
The Commissioners testified to
proceedings,
out condemnation
the statute of
tricia,
shares,
who
half
owns
of C & G’s
limitations,
bringing
of
an in-
opposed the New Middleton Road. All the
claim,
triggered upon
verse condemnation
is
property
they were
affected
owners testified
result,
completion of construction. As a
compen-
not
told the
January
complaint
for inverse
High-
sate them for their land because the
timely
condemnation was
filed because the
way District owned an easement. Patricia Highway
substantially com-
District did not
legal
testified she was threatened with
action plete
May
until
construction of
road
one of the Commissioners if she continued
finding
court’s
that the
district
prove
opposing the New Middleton Road.
District failed to
its affirmative defense
quasi estoppel
supported by
upon
is
We are
now called
decide
G,
competent
prevail-
evidence. C & as the
whether in a situation like this a landowner
ing party,
attorney
entitled to an
award
might
bring
as
be allowed to
suit
soon as
appeal.
fees and costs
Assuming
inundation threatens.
that such
sustained,
an action would be
it is' not a
SCHROEDER,
WALTERS,
Justices
good enough
why
reason
he must sue then
and Justices Pro Tem SCHWARTZMAN
have,
moment,
or
that
statute of
and HOHNHORST concur.
against
run
him....
limitations
SCHWARTZMAN,
Justice Pro Tem
dealing
problem
When
with a
specially concurring.
arises under such diverse circumstances
opinion
I concur in the
of this
lead
Court.
procedural
rigidities should be avoided.
Adopting
“project completion”
puts
rule
holding
All
that we are here
when
majority
Idaho in line
with the
courts
the Government chooses not to condemn
upon
called
to determine the time the statute
bring
taking by
land but to
about a
begins
physi-
of limitations
to run in a direct
events,
continuing process
physical
taking/inverse
cal
condemnation case.
required
owner is not
to resort
either
Dickinson,
United States
331 U.S.
piecemeal
premature litigation
or to
to as-
(1947),
S.Ct.
McCuskey, “taking” where the consists of the concerning the own evidence value adoption or enforcement of governmental relatively actually amount of land occu- small regulations preclude plaintiff from which by fair market value pied the roadbed had a using any economically land for his viable $12,000. remaining approximately, purpose, it makes sense to hold that $200,000, attributable to the severance loss “[Bjecame plaintiff claim accrues when the of & farm- suffered to the remainder C G’s government’s aware of the full extent of the represented the ver- land more than 94% of interference ...” 128 Idaho at dict. difficulty that, the ratio- even under
By comparison, a
en-
case which instead
McCuskey, the “full extent
nale of Tibbs and
physical
an
tails
actual
invasion of
impairment”
with severance
associated
related,
produces
property
two
but distinct
damage
ordinarily will not
to the remainder
first,
obvious,
forms of harm. The
and most
public project
be ascertainable until the
deprivation
is the
of the fair market value of
begins.
compel
and its use
To
actually
public
the land
consumed
produce
which is un-
landowner to
evidence
second,
improvement. The
less-obvious but
necessarily conjectural
attempt
pre-
an
equally important element of loss is the eco-
can be
dict his loss
either its existence
before
injury
upon any adjoining
nomic
inflicted
amount can be measured
confirmed or its
invaded,
actually
which is not
just to
represents a result which is neither
plaintiffs ownership.
which remains
wrongfully been de-
the landowner who has
principle
It is a
that where
well-established
prived
which
of his
nor
public’s
use of the condemned land di-
just
pay
compensation required
must
adjoining, untak-
minishes the value of other
require
taking.
It is not
unreasonable
en
the owner is entitled to recover
governmental entity
violated a
has
(typically
as
this loss
referred to
“severance
right
citizen’s basic constitutional
to remain
damage”) in addition to the value of the
subject to suit until the occurrence of actual
7-711(2). See, e.g.,
invaded land.
I.C.
wrongful
loss
to its
conduct
attributable
Canyon
Irr. Co. v. Twin Falls Canal
View
Adopting the time of
be verified and valued.
Co.,
(1980);
(1969) grounds); part on other Colorado,
Shockley v. Public Serv. Co. of den.); 1183, (Colo.App.1974)(cert.
P.2d Minot, 570, City
Maragos v. 191 N.W.2d Centralia, (N.D.1971); v. Gillam 663-64 Wash.2d
(overruled Wyo part grounds); on other
ming Hwy. Dept. Napolitano, v. State Today’s (Wyo.1978). de
P.2d 1350-51 brings Idaho into line with this well-
cision majority rule.
established reasons, those set forth in
For these majority opinion Judge Schwartz- concurrence, join I in the deci- special
man’s holding that
sion to affirm the district court’s & inverse condemnation claim was not
C G’s
barred the statute of limitation. Idaho, Plaintiff-Respondent,
STATE of DORSEY, Defendant-Appellant.
John M.
No. 27373. Appeals of Idaho.
June 2003.
Rehearing Aug. Denied