Opinion ID: 1833618
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Luloff I.

Text: Luloff owns a landlocked parcel of land located south of property owned by the appellees, Gary Lichty, Nancy Lichty, Brad Lichty and Karen Lichty. He wants to condemn a portion of the Lichtys' land for use as a public road and in that way gain access to his own property. In Luloff I, the district court denied injunctive relief to Nancy Lichty, who owned the adjacent property at that time, and permitted Luloff's eminent domain action to proceed. Id. We affirmed on appeal, but expressed our concern that the proposed route, known as the cemetery route, would not actually provide access to Luloff's land. [2] Id. at 274 (noting a condemnation action under section 471.4(2) should not be allowed to proceed [if it] does not by itself serve to provide the necessary access to the landlocked property). The original eminent domain application laid out a route extending from the northwest corner of Luloff's parcel north across Nancy Lichty's land to Jubilee Road. Id. at 269. The fact that the route terminated at the corner of Luloff's property resulted in a physical impossibility of Luloff gaining access to his property without first crossing adjacent property not included in the route to be condemned. Id. at 274. Therefore, we conditioned Luloff's right to proceed with the condemnation upon a showing on remand that the eminent domain action would provide Luloff with access to his property. Id. at 275. We suggested Luloff's showing could be made in one of two ways: Luloff [could] provide evidence of a permanent easement of record across one or more of the abutting properties sufficient to provide access to his lands in conjunction with the route proposed to be condemned; or ... Luloff [could] amend or refile his application for condemnation to include a portion of one or both of the abutting properties sufficient to provide access to his property. Id. Luloff was required to demonstrate compliance with these conditions within 100 days of issuance of procedendo, or within any extended period granted by the court for good cause. Id. We warned that his failure to comply shall be grounds for the district court to enjoin further proceedings on Luloff's eminent domain application. Id.