Opinion ID: 1419944
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 8

Heading: Wal-Mart's K.S.A. 26-513 Argument

Text: K.S.A. 26-513 states in pertinent part: (a) Necessity. Private property shall not be taken or damaged for public use without just compensation. (c) Partial taking. If only a part of a tract of land or interest is taken, the compensation and measure of damages are the difference between the value of the entire property or interest immediately before the taking, and the value of that portion of the tract or interest remaining immediately after the taking. (d) Factors to be considered. In ascertaining the amount of compensation and damages as above defined, the following factors, without restriction because of enumeration, shall be given consideration if shown to exist .... 2. Access to the property remaining. 3. Appearance of the property remaining, if appearance is an element of value in connection with any use for which the property is reasonably adaptable. 4. Productivity, convenience, use to be made of the property taken, or use of the property remaining. 5. View, ventilation and light, to the extent that they are beneficial attributes to the use of which the remaining property is devoted or to which it is reasonably adaptable. 6..... [C]hanges of grade and loss or impairment of access by means of underpass or overpass incidental to changing the character or design of an existing improvement ... if in connection with the taking of additional land and needed to make the change in the improvement. 10. Damage to property abutting on a right-of-way due to change of grade where accompanied by a taking of land. (Emphasis added.) Under K.S.A. 26-513, Wal-Mart argues the measure of compensation is the difference between the market value of the entire property immediately before the taking and the market value of the property remaining immediately after the taking (citing PIK Civ.3d 131.04, 131.05). According to Wal-Mart, loss of access, view, and change in grade are specifically named statutory factors that must be considered in determining market value after a taking. Wal-Mart asserts that K.S.A. 26-513(d) provides direct statutory authority for the expert testimony excluded by the district court. Wal-Mart's two witnesses considered impairment of access and view, inconvenience, loss of productivity, and change of grade in assessing damages. To emphasize its K.S.A. 26-513 contentions, Wal-Mart draws a distinction between police power (inverse condemnation) cases and eminent domain cases. Citing McCall Service Stations, Inc. v. City of Overland Park, 215 Kan. 390, 524 P.2d 1165 (1974), Wal-Mart asserts that the only issue to be determined here is the amount to be paid for the taking. According to Wal-Mart, the City's police power analysis is nothing but a mantra to avoid payment under K.S.A. 26-513(d).