Daily Development for Wednesday, September 2, 2009
by: Patrick A. Randolph, Jr.
Elmer F. Pierson Professor of Law
UMKC School of Law
Of Counsel: Husch Blackwell Sanders
Kansas City, Missouri
EMINENT DOMAIN; DEPRIVATION OF ACCESS: Even though owner retains access to property, state’s action that “substantially or unreasonably” interfered with commercial use by depriving owner of a second access point which permitted “flow through” of traffic amounted to taking within meaning of state constitution.
State ex rel Thieken v. Procter, 904 N.E.2d 619 (Ohio App. 10 Dist).
The Ohio Department of Transportation ("ODOT"), appealed from a judgment of the Franklin County Court of Common Pleas in favor of Thieken.
In 2001, the Department of Transportation initiated a project to improve the portion of State Route ("S.R.") 7. Thieken owned a property on the north-west corner of the intersection of S.R. 7 and S.R. 775. From 1996 to 2006, Thieken leased his property to John W. Clark Oil Co., Inc., which operated a Marathon gas station/convenience store on the property. The convenience store, located to the rear (north side) of the property, faced S.R. 7, and an attached canopy extended from the store entrance almost to S.R. 7.
Prior to ODOT's improvements, both S.R. 7 and S.R. 775 were on the same grade with Thieken's property allowing customers to pull into the gas station from virtually any point at which the property abutted S.R. 7 or S.R. 775. ODOT's plans for improving S.R. 7 included the installation of a six-inch concrete curb along the majority of the southern boundary of Thieken's property. The curb would prevent customers from accessing Thieken's property from S.R. 7 except through a curb cut located on the southwest edge of the property. The curb cut consisted of a 42-foot apron, tapering to a 30-foot driveway.
Thieken initiated a mandamus action in the Franklin County Court of Common Pleas in which he alleged that ODOT's limitation of his access to S.R. 7 constituted a taking and that the Ohio Constitution entitled him to compensation for that taking. Thieken sought a writ of mandamus compelling ODOT to initiate an appropriation action to compensate him for its interference with access to his property.
Both Thieken and ODOT moved for summary judgment based on the evidentiary record developed in the Lawrence County Court of Common Pleas. The trial court granted ODOT summary judgment and denied Thieken summary judgment. Thieken appealed that judgment to the court of appeals. Finding that the parties presented conflicting evidence as to whether ODOT substantially or unreasonably interfered with Thieken's right of access, the court or appeals reversed the trial court's judgment and remanded the case to that court. On remand, the trial court conducted a bench trial and issued judgment in favor of Thieken.
The Ohio Constitution prohibits the state from taking private property for public use without just compensation. Section 19, Article I, Ohio Constitution. A "taking" occurs when the state substantially or unreasonably interferes with a property right. State ex rel. OTR v. Columbus ,76 Ohio St.3d 203, 206, 667 N.E.2d 8 (1996). One of the elemental rights of real-property ownership is the right of access to any public roadway abutting the property. Id. Therefore, any governmental action that subsubstantially or unreasonably interferes with the right to access abutting roadways constitutes a taking within the meaning of Section 19, Article I of the Ohio Constitution. OTR at syllabus. When the state completely deprives a property owner of all access to an abutting road-way, the state has substantially or unreasonably interfered with the right of access. McKay v. Kauer, 156 Ohio St. 347, 46 (1951).
However, a taking can occur even if the state's interference does not amount to a total obstruction of access. Courts have also found a substantial or unreasonable interference with the right of access when the state blocks an existing access point so as to create circuity of travel within a property. Hilliard v. First Indus., L.P., 158 Ohio App.3d 792, 2004. "Circuity of travel within one's own property occurs when one entrance or exit way is removed and another is not created." First Indus., L.P., at 8. Thus, when a property owner has two entrances from an abutting roadway, and the state blocks one of the entrances without supplying an additional entrance, circuity of travel within a property results. Thieken's property essentially had two wide entrances off S.R. 7 before ODOT installed curbing along that roadway. Customers could access the property either through the "eastern entrance," or the "western entrance" of Thieken's property. By installing a curb along Thieken's proper
ty boundary, ODOT completely blocked the eastern entrance and limited the western entrance to a 42-foot curb cut, tapering to a 30-foot driveway.
The Appeals court concluded that the trial court properly determined that ODOT substantially or unreasonably interfered with Thieken's right of access when it created circuity of travel within Thieken's property and overruled ODOT's first assignment of error.
ODOT argued that the trial court erred in allowing testimony about the highest and best use of Thieken's property and in relying upon that testimony to reach its decision. Although the trial court found that ODOT destroyed the highest and best use of Thieken's property, the appeals court did not conclude, that the trial court's decision "hinged" upon that finding, but, rather, that the trial court decided that ODOT substantially or unreasonably interfered with Thieken's right of access for two reasons: (1) ODOT created circuity of travel within Thieken's property and (2) a change in the highest and best use of the property. Since the Appeals court concluded that the trial court's first reason is both legally correct and supported by the evidence, they had no need to address any alleged error underlying the second reason.
Comment: DIRT has reported many cases over the years in which landowners who retained some access to their property were not able to argue a taking when other access was restricted. The Ohio rule, here, seems somewhat more protective of the landowner. The editor has not seen the “circuity of travel” argument used before, but here it appeared to be of great effect.
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 or
individual contributors 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
DIRT is an internet discussion group for serious
real estate professionals. Message volume varies,
but commonly runs 5 to 15 messages per work day.
DIRT Developments are posted periodically, as supply dictates.
To subscribe, send the message
subscribe Dirt [your name]
To cancel your subscription, send the message
signoff DIRT to the address:
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 cancel your subscription to BrokerDIRT, send the message
signoff BrokerDIRT to the address:
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, any substitute reporters, DIRT, and its sponsors.
All DIRT Developments, and scores of other cases, arranged topically, are reported in hardcopy form in the ABA Quarterly Report. This is a limited subscription service, available to ABA Section Members, AMCA members and members of the NAR. Qualified subscribers may Subscribe to this Report ($30 for Two Years) by Sending a Check to Ms. Bunny Lee, ABA Section on Real Property, Trust & Estate Law, 321 N. Clark Street, Chicago, Il 60610. Contact Bunny Lee at (312) 988-5651, Leeb@staff.abanet.org Aba Members Also Can Access Prior and Current Editions of this Report on the Aba Rpte Section Website.
DIRT has a WebPage at: