Court Opinion

ID: 9703637
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 00:02:52.728589+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:21:50.841337
License: Public Domain

SHIRLEY S. ABRAHAMSON, CHIEF JUSTICE
¶ 29. (concurring). I join only the conclusions set forth in ¶ 28 of Justice Bablitch's opinion.
DIANE S. SYKES, J.
¶ 30. (concurring in part, dissenting in part). I agree with the majority's analysis of this case, with one exception. I do not agree that the "essential inquiry" in a partial takings case involving a change of highway access is "whether the change in access is 'reasonable.'" Majority op., ¶ 21.
¶ 31. It is well-established that " 'the right of access to and from a public highway is one of the incidents of the ownership or occupancy of land abutting thereon.'" Hastings Realty Corp. v. Texas Co., 28 Wis. 2d 305, 310, 137 N.W.2d 79 (1965)(quoting Royal Transit, Inc. v. Village of West Milwaukee, 266 Wis. 271, *670277, 63 N.W.2d 62 (1954)) (emphasis in original). " '[Hjighway-access rights are but one of a bundle of rights which appertain to a parcel of real estate.'" Id. at 311.
¶ 32. Prior to the construction at issue in this case, National Auto, whose property abuts Highway 12, had access to Highway 12 via two driveways providing direct ingress and egress into the truckstop. Both of these direct access points were eliminated as a result of the reconstruction of Highway 12. The truckstop is now accessible only via a frontage road off of Brakke Road. Brakke Road is accessible from Highway 12 at an intersection to the north of the truckstop. Thus, National Auto's access to Highway 12 has been rerouted to a frontage road that can be accessed from Highway 12 only via Brakke Road.
¶ 33. As the majority notes, Wis. Stat. § 32.09(6)(b) specifies that the compensable items of loss or damage in an eminent domain partial taking of property for public use include "[djeprivation or restriction of existing right of access" to the highway. Majority op., ¶¶ 17-18; Wis. Stat. § 32.09(6)(b). Nevertheless, the majority concludes that if "the jury finds that the changed access is reasonable, then no compensation is to be awarded to National Auto due to the change in access." Majority op., ¶ 22. The majority further states that "if the jury finds that the changed access is not reasonable, then National Auto is entitled to just compensation for the deprivation or restriction of its right of access." Id.
¶ 34. Even assuming that the elimination of National Auto's direct access to Highway 12 in this case is properly characterized as a mere "change in access," it is not true that compensation is owed only if the change in access is "not reasonable." The rule the majority cites, *671whereby the provision of reasonable alternative access obviates the requirement of compensation, applies only in partial takings cases involving controlled access highways and the invocation of the state's police power. See Schneider v. State Division of Highways, 51 Wis. 2d 458, 462, 187 N.W.2d 172 (1971); majority op., ¶ 19. In Schneider this court held that "[w]here access to a highway is controlled under the exercise of the police power and reasonable access remains, no compensation is required." Id.
¶ 35. The state conceded that this is not a controlled access highway, and the majority has correctly concluded that this highway project was not otherwise undertaken as an exercise of the police power. Majority op., ¶¶ 14-18. Accordingly, the Schneider rule does not apply.
¶ 36. Thus, even assuming that this elimination of access is a mere change of access, compensation is owed regardless of whether the change of access is reasonable. Highway access rights are property rights, and the eminent domain statute specifically provides that compensation shall be paid for " [deprivation or restriction of existing right of access" to the highway. Wis. Stat. § 32.09(6)(b). The reasonableness or efficacy of the alternative access may have a bearing on the amount of damages ultimately awarded for the taking, to the extent that the change in access affects fair market value. But the question of whether or not there has been a taking of access rights for which compensation is owed does not turn on whether the change in access is reasonable.
¶ 37. This case is controlled by Narloch v. State Department of Transportation, 115 Wis. 2d 419, 424, 340 N.W.2d 542 (1983). Narloch was an eminent domain partial takings case precipitated by the relocation of *672Highway 59 in the Town of Eagle. Four property owners with both developed and undeveloped rights of access to Highway 59 had compensation claims in connection with the project. The State Highway Department condemned and took "all existing future or potential common law or statutory easements or rights of access" of the property owners to Highway 59. Id. at 424.
¶ 38. Because some of the property owners' access rights in Narloch were as yet undeveloped and unper-mitted, this court addressed the following issue: "Does 'existing right of access' in sec. 32.09(6)(b), Stats., mean only access points in use and for which the Department had granted permits at the time of a condemnation?" Id. at 422 (emphasis added.) The Department had argued that "the phrase 'existing right of access'. . . mean[s] only those access points that are existing or in use at the time of the taking, and that became driveways for which the Department previously granted permits pursuant to sec. 86.07(2) and Wis. Admin. Code ch. Hy 31." Id. at 429. We rejected this argument, and concluded that" 'existing right of access' in sec. 32.09(6) (b), Stats., includes the right of an abutting property owner to ingress and egress, and the right to be judged on the criteria for granting permits for access points under sec. 86.07(2) and Wis. Admin. Code ch. Hy 31." Id. at 432.
¶ 39. We began our analysis in Narloch by observing that "a person who owns property abutting a public street has a right of access, or right of ingress and egress, to and from the street." Id. at 430 (citing Stefan Auto Body v. State Highway Comm'n, 21 Wis. 2d 363, 370, 124 N.W.2d 319 (1963)). We also noted that "[a]l-though this right is subject to reasonable regulations in the public interest, it is a property right, the taking of which requires compensation." Id. (citing Schneider, 51 Wis. 2d at 463).
*673¶ 40. Each of the property owners in Narloch had suffered varying degrees of restriction or deprivation of their right of access to Highway 59 through the elimination or relocation of access points on Highway 59 and/or rerouting of access to Highway 59 via an adjacent road. We held that:
Under the Department's interpretation of sec. 32.09(6)(b), Stats., "existing right of access" would mean "existing access points that have been improved and for which the department had granted permits under sec. 86.07(2), and Wis. Admin. Code ch. Hy 31." This construction, however, renders the inclusion of the word "right" superfluous. The deprivation or restriction that sec. 32.09(6)(b) specifically refers to is that of an "existing right of access", not "existing access points." (Emphasis added.) The statute also recognizes that even though the state may deprive or restrict access without compensation pursuant to "a duly authorized exercise of the police power," when a partial taking occurs, the loss of an existing right of access is an item of loss or damage to the remaining property that is compensable.
Id. at 430-31.
¶ 41. Because the relocation of Highway 59 at issue in Narloch involved neither a controlled access highway nor a restriction of access pursuant to an exercise of the police power, we held that the condemnation and taking of the property owners' access rights required compensation. Id. at 431-32. Important to the analysis here, we did not hold in Narloch that the requirement of compensation depended upon whether the property owners were left with reasonable alternative access to Highway 59. Indeed, the property owners in Narloch retained at least some form of access to Highway 59 after the construction; their right to corn-*674pensation was not affected by any determination of the "reasonableness" of what replaced their prior access.
¶ 42. As I have noted, the state conceded that Highway 12 is not a controlled access highway, and the majority properly holds that this project was not otherwise undertaken pursuant to the state's police power. National Auto's right of access to Highway 12 was fully developed and properly permitted at the time of the taking, and there is no dispute that its two driveways onto Highway 12 were completely eliminated as a result of this highway reconstruction. While the state has provided a form of alternative access — first to a frontage road, then to Brakke Road, and only then to Highway 12 — the question of whether there has been a compensable taking does not depend upon a determination of the reasonableness of this alternative access. There has been a "deprivation or restriction of existing right of access" under Wis. Stat. § 32.09(6)(b); the reasonableness or unreasonableness of the alternative access is relevant only perhaps to the amount of damages, not to the right to compensation in the first place.
¶ 43. Accordingly, to the extent that the majority has conditioned the requirement of compensation on a determination of the reasonableness of the change in access, I must respectfully dissent. Under Narloch and Wis. Stat. § 32.09(6)(b), there has been a compensable partial taking of National Auto's access rights in this case. The only remaining question is the amount of the damages award for the taking of those access rights.
¶ 44. I am authorized to state that Justices JON E WILCOX and DAVID T. PROSSER, JR. join this concurring/dissenting opinion.