We will be presenting information at an upcoming CLE seminar on one of our cases that is on appeal. The case, County of Dakota vs. Cameron (read more here) involves Minn. Stat. 117.187, which was enacted in 2006 and states:
When an owner must relocate, the amount of damages payable, at a minimum, must be sufficient for an owner to purchase a comparable property in the community and not less than the condemning authority’s payment or deposit under section 117.042, to the extent that the damages will not be duplicated in the compensation otherwise awarded to the owner of the property. For the purposes of this section, “owner” is defined as the person or entity that holds fee title to the property.
Minn. § 117.187 may ultimately change total takings cases because paying strictly for what has been taken may no longer be enough to justly compensate a property owner who cannot find an existing comparable property. The Minimum Compensation Statute, however, is so new that no case has made it through the court system to the appellate level. County of Dakota vs. Cameron is the first case heard on this issue at the appellate level.
The Dakota County Court recently held on this issue:
The Court feels that the term “comparable property” refers to property of a similar location, size, age, condition, zoning, and access as the property taken. Further, in a case such as this where a business needs to be moved, the comparable property should be such that it can reasonably house the business in questions. Such a property may or may not presently exist.
We interpret this statute liberally in favor of the property owner and argue that a comparable property under the Minimum Compensation Statute must be a specific, existent property that the displaced owner can actually purchase. Additionally, this property must be available at the time of the taking, and located within the community.
There is currently no case law interpreting the Statute’s term “in the community”, nor is there any case law interpreting whether a comparable property must be a specific, existent property that the displaced owner can actually purchase. We believe the trial court’s interpretation of the Minimum Compensation Statute ignores the statue’s plain language, is inconsistent with the purpose of the statute to relocate displaced business owners, and is liberally construed in favor of the County, not the property owner.
The US Supreme Court has consistently held in condemnation cases that the government’s obligation is to “put the owner in as good a position pecuniary as if the use of their property had not been taken”. Monongahela Nav. Co. v United States, 148 U.S. 312 (1893); Phelps v. United States, 274 U.S. 341 (1927); Olson v. United States, 292 U.S. 296 (1934). That is, property owners should receive fair and just compensation and not be at any financial loss resulting from the government’s action to seize their property. The condemnation process was designed to protect property owners, and statutes such as Minn. § 117.187 are enacted to further protect the rights of property owners during condemnation proceedings. It is therefore the responsibility of the court to liberally construe eminent domain statutes in favor of the property owner.
Tags: legislation
