Court Opinion

ID: 9462645
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-04 22:46:33.794539+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:37:42.121418
License: Public Domain

JAMES M. CARTER, Circuit Judge
(dissenting):
I respectfully dissent.
The majority opinion would create by judicial fiat a new right for landowners in condemnation cases. It is contrary to a line of cases holding that a landowner may recover damages for a taking but not for consequential damages. Campbell v. United States, 266 U.S. 368, 370-72, 45 S.Ct. 115, 69 L.Ed. 328 (1924). That case also held, in particular, that harm done by the Government’s use of lands once owned by third parties was mere consequential damages.
Campbell was essentially a severance case where the landowner recovered the value of the portion condemned and the diminution of the value of an adjoining parcel. But this was not the real issue litigated. The landowner was also seeking an enhanced value to the adjoining parcel because of the increased use of condemned land once owned by third parties.
Campbell cannot be read out of our case by saying that appellants herein were only seeking compensation for the taking of their own easement in the roadway. They were claiming that their non-adjoining land was now less valuable because their right to solitude and privacy in that land was decreased by the additional usage of third parties’ lands, now that the road, after condemnation, was a public road.
Campbell stated:
“ . . . The [trial] court found that the damages to the remainder of plaintiff’s estate from the use to be made of lands acquired from others resulted chiefly from the probability that the tract, improved as it has been by the United States, will be sold and used for industrial purposes.
“The taking was under the sovereign power of eminent domain. Thereupon he became entitled to have the just compensation safeguarded by the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution; that is, the value' of the land taken and the damages inflicted by the taking . . But he was not entitled to have more than that.
“. . . The damages resulting to the remainder from the taking of a part were separable from those caused by the use to be made of the lands acquired from others. The proposed use of the lands taken from others did not consti*1097tute a taking of his property. Richards v. Washington Terminal Co., 233 U.S. 546, 554 [34 S.Ct. 654, 58 L.Ed. 1088, L.R.A. 1915A, 887]. Plaintiff had no right to prevent the taking and use of the lands of others; and the exertion by the United States of the power of eminent domain did not deprive him of any right in respect of such lands. And, if the land taken from plaintiff had belonged to another, or if it had not been deemed part and parcel of his estate, he would not have been entitled to anything on account of the diminution in value of his estate. It is only because of the taking of a part of his land that he became entitled to any damages resulting to the rest. In the absence of a taking, the provision of the Fifth Amendment giving just compensation does not apply; and there in no statute applicable in this case that enlarges the constitutional right. If the former private owners had devoted their lands to the identical uses for which they were acquired by the United States or to which they probably will be put . they would not have become liable for the resulting diminution in value of plaintiffs property. The liability of the United States is not greater than would be that of the private users.”
“The rule supported by better reason and the weight of authority is that the just compensation assured by the Fifth Amendment to an owner, a part of whose land is taken for public use, does not include the diminution in value of the remainder caused by the acquisition and use of adjoining lands of others for the same undertaking.” (Citations omitted; emphasis added). Id. 266 U.S. at 371-372, 45 S.Ct. at 116.
Since appellants here contend that the increased use of the public road and the land adjoining their property will decrease their solitude and privacy, they had suffered only consequential damage.
United States v. Miller, 317 U.S. 369, 376, 63 S.Ct. 276, 281, 87 L.Ed. 336 (1943), states
“ . . . [A] parcel of land which has been used and treated as an entity shall be so considered in assessing compensation for the taking of part or all of it.
“This has begotten subsidiary rules. If only a portion of a single tract is taken, the owner’s compensation for that taking includes any element of value arising out of the relation of the part taken to the entire tract. Such damage is often, though somewhat loosely, spoken of as severance damage. On the other hand, if the taking has in fact benefited the remainder the benefit may be set off against the value of the land taken.
“As respects other property of the owner consisting of separate tracts adjoining that affected by the taking, the Constitution has never been construed as requiring payment of consequential damages; and unless the legislature so provides, as it may, benefits are not assessed against such neighboring tracts for increase in their value. (Emphasis added.)
Batten v. United States, 306 F.2d 580, 583-84 (10 Cir. 1962), cert. den., 371 U.S. 955, 83 S.Ct. 718, 9 L.Ed.2d 731 (1963), held that:
“In construing and applying this constitutional provision [nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation] the federal courts have long and consistently recognized the distinction between a taking and consequential damages. In Transportation Company v. Chicago, 99 U.S. 635, 642, 25 L.Ed. 336, the Supreme Court held that governmental activities which do not directly encroach on private property are not a taking within the meaning of the Fifth Amendment even though the consequences of such acts may impair the use of the property. The principle was repeated in United States v. Willow River Power Co., 324 U.S. 499, 510, 65 S.Ct. 761, 89 L.Ed. 1101, the Court saying that ‘damage alone gives courts no power to require compensation.’ We have recognized the rule in this circuit by our holding in Harris v. United States, 10 Cir., 205 F.2d 765, 767, that under the federal constitution ‘damages to property not taken *1098are compensable only as a consequence of or incidental to an actual taking.’
“Because of this rule which denies the recovery of consequential damages in the absence of any taking, many state constitutions provide in substance that private property shall not be taken or damaged for public use without compensation. However, the federal obligation has not been so enlarged either by statute or by constitutional amendment.” (Footnotes omitted).
Nunnally v. United States, 239 F.2d 521, 523-24 (4 Cir. 1956), states:
“The rule, that ‘acts done in the proper exercise of governmental powers, and not directly encroaching upon private property, though their consequences may impair its use, are universally held not be a taking within the meaning of the constitutional provision’, was stated by the Supreme Court in Transportation Co. v. Chicago, 99 U.S. 635, 25 L.Ed. 336. It has been restated in similar terms many times since, e. g. ‘The Constitution provides that private property shall not be taken without just compensation, but a distinction has been made between damage and taking, and that distinction must be observed in applying the constitutional provision.’ Bedford v. United States, 192 U.S. 217, 224, 24 S.Ct. 238, 240, 48 L.Ed. 414.”
Appellants claim their solitude and privacy in their land, which does not adjoin the easement taken, have been lost because the public, using other land, can come nearer to them and can cross and use the various third-party holdings. The Campbell case and the others cited above are squarely against the appellants.
The material facts of In re Appeal of Sowers, 175 Minn. 168, 220 N.W. 419 (1928), are nearly identical to those involved here. Sowers and others owned wooded lots in a forest recreation area. To facilitate access to these lots, Sowers and associates purchased an easement across the property of another and constructed a road. Sowers treated this as an exclusive right-of-way by installing a locking gate and charging nonpermittees for entry. Subsequently, the township entered the area and constructed a public highway. The Sowers road was incorporated into it and the gate removed. When Sowers sought compensation for this “taking”, the court replied:
“ * * * This was an easement which is property and, when taken for public use the owner is entitled to compensation therefor. But the taking in such case must be real, actual and involve a loss.
“In this case all the appellants had in this strip of land was the privilege of using it. The inclusion of this strip in the public road did not take from them the right to use this strip of land. * * * The broadening of the easement to the public generally did not in law destroy or take away their privilege * * * [citation omitted].” 220 N.W. at 420.
The majority distinguishes Sowers on the ground that the deeds did not create exclusive easements in Sowers. However, the court in Sowers did state that “Sowers treated the easement as exclusive and closed the road with gates which he locked and furnished keys to those whom he permitted to use the road.” 220 N.W. at 420. Therefore in fact Sowers exercised an exclusive easement, presumably with the knowledge and consent of the fee holder. Nevertheless, Sowers was denied compensation for the loss of his “exclusivity” (whether in deed or in fact) and his loss of privacy was not compensated.
Similar cases in other jurisdictions have either cited Sowers with approval, City of Bellevue v. Underwood, 59 Wash.2d 793, 370 P.2d 861 (1962) (nonexclusive, private easement), or held, independently of Sowers, that no compensation can be recovered for the inclusion of a private road in a public highway. Clayton v. Gilmer County Court, 58 W.Va. 253, 52 S.E. 103 (1905); Cook County v. Vander Wolf, 394 Ill. 521, 69 N.E.2d 256 (1946) (dictum); but see City of Miami Beach v. Belle Isle Apartment Corp., 177 So.2d 884 (Fla.App.1965) (portion of private road used by owners for other private purposes). The New York courts award only nominal damages when a noncommer*1099cial private way is merely opened to the public. Compare In re Avenue Between Fort Washington and Haven Avenues in City of New York, 153 App.Div. 164, 138 N.Y.S. 107 (1912); and In re East 5th St., Borough of Manhattan, City of New York, 1 Misc.2d 977, 146 N.Y.S.2d 794 (1955) (dictum), with In re West 10th St, Borough of Brooklyn, City of New York, 267 N.Y. 212, 196 N.E. 30 (1935) (private way opened and commercially valuable signs removed and parking rights ended).
In United States v. Pope & Talbot, Inc., 293 F.2d 822 (9 Cir. 1961), the government condemned appellee’s land. This land, as well as some of the government’s land, was flooded by a dam reservoir. The appellee contended that the lake would attract people to the remaining United States forest lands, creating a fire hazard to appellee’s remaining lands. The appellee was deprived of land and a road which it owned in part and had a right of way to another part. The court held that the appellee should be compensated for the loss in market value due to the reduced accessibility of his land (the entire road was flooded and a lake created), but not for the increase in public use of the area and resulting loss of privacy. The court said the appellee could not “complain that the use made of the lands taken from it has increased the attractiveness of the government’s forest lands.” Id., p. 826.
Similarly, in the case at bar, the appellants cannot complain that the use of the lands taken will increase the attractiveness of the nearby forest lands.
The majority seek to distinguish Pope on the ground that there the sole cause of injury was the fire hazard from the forest land and not from the use of his condemned land. However in Pope, as here, the land condemned contributed to the increased use of the forest lands (the lands were now part of an attractive lake), and therefore in some measure caused the increase in fire hazard and the decrease in the value of appellee’s remaining land.
In United States v. Honolulu Plantation Co., 182 F.2d 172, 178-9 (9 Cir. 1950), the plaintiff had a long-term lease on the land taken which adjoined land owned by him in fee simple and whose market value was reduced by the taking. The court stated the basic rule as to severance damage:
“The rule requiring compensation for loss in market value of the remainder of the tract is applied strictly only where there is but a single parcel owned by one party in fee simple. An extension of the doctrine permitted the inclusion of another parcel in the same ownership if it lay contiguous to the principal tract. . With some reluctance, the courts have held that the owner of one parcel in fee may be compensated for loss in market value thereof as a result of the taking of another parcel owned in fee by him, even if the latter is not contiguous, provided that, by actual and permanent use, a unitary purpose is served by both parcels.” (Footnotes omitted, emphasis added). /
In the present case, appellants did not own the road in fee simple. In fact, they had an undivided one-third interest in several separate easements, and a right-of-way at sufferance over a Government segment of the road.
Citing Campbell, supra, the court further stated:
“Where part of a tract in fee ownership is condemned, the loss in market value of the remainder cannot be augmented by consideration of the damage caused thereto by the taking or prospective use of lands held by third parties in fee simple as part of the same project.” Id., 182 F.2d at 179.
Although an easement rather than a lease is involved in our case, the principle is the same, particularly since in this case appellants can still use the road, can still have a locked gate between the public road,, and their access road, and the road nowhere abuts their property. The appellants failed to present any evidence that they had any valuable interest in the road, that is, an interest for which anyone without sentimental attachment to the area would pay money. As the Supreme Court said in Kimball Laundry Co. v. United States, 338 U.S. *11001, 5, 69 S.Ct. 1434, 1437, 93 .L.Ed. 1765 (1949):
“The value of property springs from subjective needs and attitudes; its value to the owner may therefore differ widely from its value to the taker. Most things, however, have a general demand which gives them a value transferable from one owner to another. As opposed to such personal and variant standards as value to the particular owner whose property has been taken, this transferable value has an external validity which makes it a fair measure of public obligation to compensate the loss incurred by an owner as a result of the taking of his property for public use. In view, however, of the liability of all property to condemnation for the common good, loss to the owner of nontransferable values deriving from his unique need for property or idiosyncratic attachment to it, like loss due to an exercise of the police power is properly treated as part of the burden of common citizenship. See Omnia Commercial Co. v. United States, 261 U.S. 502, 508-09 [43 S.Ct. 437, 438, 67 L.Ed. 773]. Because gain to the taker, on the other hand, may be wholly unrelated to the deprivation imposed upon the owner, it must also be rejected as a measure of public obligation to require for that deprivation. McGovern v. New York, 229 U.S. 363 [33 S.Ct. 876, 57 L.Ed. 1228, 46 L.R.A., N.S. 391]; United States ex rel. T. V.A. v. Powelson, 319 U.S. 266 [63 S.Ct. 1047, 87 L.Ed. 1390],
“The value compensable under the Fifth Amendment, therefore, is only that value which is capable of transfer from owner to owner and thus of exchange for some equivalent. Its measure is the amount of that equivalent.”
Appellants seek help from cases like United States v. Welch, 217 U.S. 333, 30 S.Ct. 527, 54 L.Ed. 787 (1910). The facts are set forth in the majority opinion. The Court upheld the lower court’s award, which valued the loss of the easement by considering the easement’s value to the owner’s dominant estate. Welch, however, does not save the appellants. In Welch, the valuation standard was applied in the context of a complete physical destruction of the access route. There was both a taking and a loss of value to the dominant estate.
In the case at bar, both the road and appellants’ right to use it are still intact. There has been no taking from the appellants. Indeed, the road is better now than before.
Finally, the contention of exclusiveness of the easement held by appellants is what seems to have led to the majority result. The majority assumes the easement is “exclusive.” Such an absolute characterization renders their argument easier, but ignores the facts.
The appellants and two others acquired an interest in the easements. Whitely and Fibreboard (a timber company) owned the other two interests. The Government had right of access for its employees and permittees, at least for the part of the road traversing Government property. It is true that none of the grantors were empowered to grant additional easements or to interfere with the grantees’ easements. However, each of the three grantees could allow their “permittees” to use the road. Thus there was an unlimited number of persons (the three parties to the easements, the Government, and the agents and permittees of each) who could use the road built on the easements. Therefore, appellants did not have the exclusive power to determine who could traverse the road, and their easement was anything but exclusive.
If the appellants were the only persons holding an interest in the easement, they could limit the number of persons using the road. But in our factual situation they did not have the power of limitation.
The majority’s error is shown on p. 7 (p. 7, lines 28-32 of the typewritten draft), where it is stated:
“Where an easement owner has the right to exclude all but the grantor himself and the grantor retains no right to terminate or dilute that exclusivity, we would be ignoring reality if we said the *1101destruction of that right was not a compensable loss.”
The facts are to the contrary.
The judgment below should be affirmed.