Daily Development for Tuesday, September 2, 2008
by: Patrick A. Randolph, Jr.
Elmer F. Pierson Professor of Law
UMKC School of Law
Of Counsel: Husch Blackwell Sanders
Kansas City, Missouri
dirt@umkc.edu

EMINENT DOMAIN; EASEMENTS; SCOPE OF TAKING: Where a condemnation authority takes an easement to construct a water diversion facility, it does not acquire the ownership of the dirt that it excavates to build that facility, and therefore is liable additionally for taking the value of that dirt and using it as fill in another construction project.

Brownlow v. Texas, 251 S.W. 3d 756 (Tex. App. 2008) 

The State highway authority (“State”) sought to condemn Brownlow’s property to construct a water detention facility that was part of the State’s highway widening project.  Although it originally applied for a fee simple condemnation, it did not complete the lawsuit, but rather entered into a “agreed judgment” stipulating that the State took “a permanent easement in the property.”

State proceeded to remove 87,455 cubic meters of dirt and used it in another section of the highway widening project.   Brownlows brought suit contending that the excavated soil was not part of the easement condemnation.  The appeals court here agreed, reversing the judgment below.  By taking the dirt, State had engaged in an inverse condemnation and was liable for the value.

The court found it necessary to deal with a 1913 precedent that apparently had found the State not liable for excavation of dirt in the development of an easement.  The court commented that that case might remain good law “[i]nsofar as the State comes into incidental possession of soil while grading a highway.”   But it overruled the case insofar as it suggested that the State was authorized to remove thousands of cubic meters of dirt and use it for a purpose unrelated to the detention facility.  It appears that the court is holding that the court can dig out the dirt, but cannot reuse it. 

Comment 1: The State argued, of course, that the nature of the detention facility was evident to the Brownlows, and that they should have expected that dirt would be removed.  Although the decision is not crystal clear, it appears that the court’s real objection is not that the dirt was removed, but that it was reused. 

Comment 2:  Would the State have avoided liability if it had tendered the dirt to the Brownlows?  Likely so, because, as the court makes clear, the dirt had a market value and likely the Brownlows could have realized upon that value. 

What if condemning authority removes brush or timber or dirt in the course of excavation and just trucks it away and dumps it somewhere else?  The editor assumes that this is not a taking, so long as the material is made reasonably available to the condemned parties if they want it.

Comment 3: Although this case arises in the context of the a public road development easement, is there really any reason to believe that it would not also be relevant to the identification of the relative rights of the parties in the transfer of a private easement?  The editor thinks that it is relevant, and that’s one more thing that parties drafting an easement ought to be thinking about.  As the editor has often commented, easements generally are undernegotiated and underdrafted.  If there hasn’t been a case like this as yet involving a private easement, we’re likely to see one at some point. 

Items reported here and in the ABA publications
are for general information purposes only and
should not be relied upon in the course of
representation or in the forming of decisions in
legal matters.  The same is true of all
commentary provided by contributors to the DIRT
list.  Accuracy of data and opinions expressed
are the sole responsibility of the DIRT editor
and are in no sense the publication of the ABA.

Parties posting messages to DIRT are posting to a
source that is readily accessible by members of
the general public, and should take that fact
into account in evaluating confidentiality
issues.

ABOUT DIRT:

DIRT is an internet discussion group for serious
real estate professionals. Message volume varies,
but commonly runs 5 to 15 messages per work day.

Daily Developments are posted every work day.  To
subscribe, send the message

subscribe Dirt [your name]

to

listserv@listserv.umkc.edu

To cancel your subscription, send the message
signoff DIRT to the address:

listserv@listserv.umkc.edu

for information on other commands, send the message
Help to the listserv address.

DIRT has an alternate, more extensive coverage that includes not only
commercial and general real estate matters but also focuses specifically upon
residential real estate matters.  Because real estate brokers generally find
this service more valuable, it is named “BrokerDIRT.”  But residential
specialist attorneys, title insurers, lenders and others interested in the
residential market will want to subscribe to this alternative list.  If you
subscribe to BrokerDIRT, it is not necessary also to subscribe to DIRT, as
BrokerDIRT carries all DIRT traffic in addition to the residential discussions.

To subscribe to BrokerDIRT, send the message

subscribe BrokerDIRT [your name]

to

listserv@listserv.umkc.edu

To cancel your subscription to BrokerDIRT, send the message
signoff BrokerDIRT to the address:

listserv@listserv.umkc.edu

DIRT is a service of the American Bar Association
Section on Real Property, Probate & Trust Law and
the University of Missouri, Kansas City, School
of Law.  Daily Developments are copyrighted by
Patrick A. Randolph, Jr., Professor of Law, UMKC
School of Law, but Professor Randolph grants
permission for copying or distribution of Daily
Developments for educational purposes, including
professional continuing education, provided that
no charge is imposed for such distribution and
that appropriate credit is given to Professor
Randolph, DIRT, and its sponsors.

DIRT has a WebPage at:
https://e2k.exchange.umkc.edu/exchweb/bin/redir.asp?URL=http://cctr.umkc.edu/dept/dirt/