Opinion ID: 2637438
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: Restoration Costs Award

Text: The parties agree that the Trust is entitled to compensation for physically damaging the surface of the Trust Property occasioned by the Contractors' use thereof, but they disagree on the applicable measure of the award. Boulder asserts that the jury should determine just compensation due to the Trust by the diminution in market value of the Trust Property calculated over the period of the taking. The Trust counters that the jury properly awarded compensation for restoring the Trust Property to its pre-taking condition. The court of appeals reasoned that the standard or measure for determining the amount of compensation for physical damage to the property should be the same for an action brought under either tort or inverse condemnation theories. See Fowler, 992 P.2d at 1197. The court of appeals relied heavily on Board of County Commissioners v. Slovek, 723 P.2d 1309 (Colo.1986) and the Restatement (Second) of Torts § 929 (1979). In Slovek, a trespass action brought in tort, we decided that the compensation required for property damage caused by flooding could be calculated by either the diminution in the property value before and after the flooding or by the cost to restore the property. See Slovek, 723 P.2d at 1316. We stated that a trial court must award the compensation necessary to reimburse the plaintiff for losses actually suffered. Id. at 1314. To facilitate appellate review, we stated that the trial court should articulate its reasons for awarding restoration costs as opposed to compensation for diminution in value. See id. at 1316. The court of appeals, as we did in Slovek, gave weight to certain factors described in Section 929, comment b of the Restatement (Second) of Torts. [10] It decided that because there was no evidence of the Restatement factors, and the trial court did not clearly articulate its findings with regard to any other factors, awarding restoration costs may not have been proper. See Fowler, 992 P.2d at 1198. Consequently, the court of appeals remanded the case to the trial court for consideration of the Restatement factors. See id. Based on the record, we uphold the award of restoration costs here. We stated in Slovek that the factors that merit awarding restoration costs are not fixed, and that to make them so would forfeit the flexibility trial courts need to achieve fair results. See Slovek, 723 P.2d at 1315-16. Although Slovek was a tort case, its discussion aids the just compensation inquiry in a temporary taking case involving physical damage to the property. If the damage is reparable, and the costs, although greater than original value, are not wholly unreasonable in relation to that value, and if the evidence demonstrates that payment of market value likely will not adequately compensate the property owner for some personal or other special reason, ... selection of the cost of restoration as the proper measure of damages would be within the limits of a trial court's discretion. Id. at 1317; see also Big Five Mining Co. v. Left Hand Ditch Co., 73 Colo. 545, 549, 216 P. 719, 721 (1923) (stating that the cost of restoration may be proper where the injury is susceptible of remedy at moderate expense, and the cost of restoring it may be shown with reasonable certainty). The Fifth Amendment Takings Clause is in a class by itself because, unlike other constitutional deprivations, it provides both the cause of action ... and the remedy. Jan G. Laitos, Law of Property Rights Protection: Limitation on Governmental Powers § 17.02, at 17-3 (1999). Pursuant to Article II, section 15 of the Colorado Constitution, the property owner is entitled to just compensation in an inverse condemnation action. The role of just compensation is to put the landowner in the same pecuniary position as though the taking had not occurred. See United States v. Miller, 317 U.S. 369, 373, 63 S.Ct. 276, 279-80, 87 L.Ed. 336, 342 (1943). Temporary takings jurisprudence recognizes that just compensation can encompass the cost of restoring the property to its pre-taking condition, as well as the fair rental value of the property over the period of the taking. See 4 Sackman, supra, § 12E.01, at 12E-7; see also General Motors Corp., 323 U.S. at 383-84, 65 S.Ct. at 362, 89 L.Ed. at 321 (allowing costs for damage to fixtures and equipment destroyed or depreciated during a temporary taking); Sacramento & San Joaquin Drainage Dist. v. Goehring, 13 Cal.App.3d 58, 66, 91 Cal.Rptr. 375, 380 (1970) (stating that just compensation in temporary takings matters includes restoration damages); Paddock v. Durham, 110 N.H. 106, 108, 261 A.2d 438, 441 (1970) (allowing costs to restore property to its pre-taking condition). The Trust presented the jury with evidence of physical detriment Boulder caused to the Trust Property and the costs of removing construction debris, recontouring the surface, and reseeding the extensively disturbed area. The record demonstrates that the damage done to the Trust Property was susceptible to repair at a reasonably certain cost based on bids placed into evidence. The property owner was entitled to be made whole. In a freely negotiated lease, the situation most comparable to a temporary taking, parties typically include a provision for damages beyond ordinary wear and tear. [11] Our review of this issue is not hindered by the lack of trial court findings. The record supports the trial court's jury instruction and the award of restoration costs. Boulder made no showing that this award would result in duplication of compensation or that the physical damage benefited the property owner. We will not set aside jury awards if they are based on the evidence and the instructions have not misled the jury. See Bohrer v. DeHart, 961 P.2d 472, 477 (Colo.1998) (stating that We defer to jury verdicts when jurors have been properly instructed and the record contains evidence to support the jury's findings). Boulder asserts that the Trust's damages are the natural, necessary, and reasonable result of the taking, as measured by the reduction in market value of the remainder of the property. Although diminution in value may be the proper measure of damages awarded for property remaining with the landowner during a temporary taking, it may not adequately measure just compensation for damage to property actually taken temporarily. The term remainder refers to the property affected by the taking though not itself taken. See La Plata Elec. Ass'n v. Cummins, 728 P.2d 696, 697 (Colo.1986) (holding that diminution in property value is the proper measure of just compensation for remainder property, where such property is located adjacent to property actually taken for a power line easement). Boulder misplaces reliance on La Plata. There, the electric association condemned only a portion of the property for an electrical power line easement. See id. The landowners brought an action for reduction in value of the remainder of the propertythat portion retained by themresulting from aesthetic damage and loss of view on a permanent basis. The property owner's loss in La Plata inhered in the remainder property and not the property subjected to the taking. [12] Here, the Trust obtained compensation for physical detriment to property actually taken, the rights to which were restored to it. [13] Although the Trust may have intended to place the Trust Property to a commercial use in the future, it was not required to do so and could have elected to leave the property in its natural, grassed condition for some time. [14] Under Boulder's theory, the land would remain in the disturbed condition Boulder caused, unless the landowner paid the restoration costs. Under the circumstances, the trial court properly instructed the jury that it could award restoration costs as part of the just compensation owed to the Trust. [15]