Court Opinion

ID: 9733810
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 17:17:45.71275+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:26:44.134421
License: Public Domain

HENDERSON, Justice
(dissenting).
I respectfully dissent.
As Chief Justice Fosheim noted in Bayer v. Johnson, 349 N.W.2d 447, 450 (S.D. 1984): “State officials, including supreme court justices, are by constitutional mandate required to take an oath or affirmation to support the constitution of this state. S.D. Const. Art. XXI, § 3.” Thus, if a patent constitutional dilemma arises in a case, although not raised by either party, this Court may decide that constitutional question on its own motion. Id. “Courts, above all, must jealously protect the integ*245rity of the constitution.” Id. Failure to meet that which is constitutionally offensive is less than supportive. Id. See also, Marbury v. Madison, 1 Cranch 137, 177-80, 5 U.S. 368, 388-91, 2 L.Ed. 60, 73-74 (1803); City of St. Louis v. Butler Co., 358 Mo. 1221, 1229-31, 219 S.W.2d 372, 378-79 (1949); In re Clark’s Estate, 105 Mont. 401, 411, 74 P.2d 401, 406, 114 A.L.R. 496, 503-04 (1937); State v. Sheldon, 545 P.2d 513, 515-18 (Utah 1976) (Maughan, J., dissenting); Stierle v. Rohmeyer, 218 Wis. 149, 164, 260 N.W. 647, 654 (1935); and 4 C.J.S. Appeal and Error § 240, at 714-15 (1957). I view this case as another decision by this Court to extend the power of government over citizens and accordingly blanch. See Krebs v. City of Rapid City, 364 N.W.2d 128, 134 (S.D.1985) (Henderson, J., dissenting); Moulton v. State, 363 N.W.2d 405, 410 (S.D.1985) (Henderson, J., dissenting); Eischen v. Minnehaha County, 363 N.W.2d 199, 204 (S.D.1985) (Henderson, J., dissenting); Byre v. City of Chamberlain, 362 N.W.2d 69, 80 (S.D.1985) (Henderson, J., dissenting); and City of Aberdeen v. Wellman, 352 N.W.2d 204, 206 (S.D.1984) (Henderson, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part). To such jeopardized philosophy, I dissent so as to protect the rights of the people and safeguard the fundamental right of private ownership of land and its appurtenances.
A person cannot be deprived of property without due process of law. S.D. Const. art. VI, § 2. See also, S.D. Const. art. VI, § 20. The state, however, as sovereign, has the inherent power of eminent domain, Darnall v. State, 79 S.D. 59, 63, 108 N.W.2d 201, 203 (1961), but private property cannot be taken for public use without just compensation. S.D. Const. art. VI, § 13.
In the case at bar, the State Department of Transportation (DOT) sought to condemn appellants’ billboard because it allegedly did not conform with the requirements of SDCL 31-29-63, et seq. Appellants, pursuant to SDCL 31-19-10.1, requested a hearing on the necessity of acquiring their billboard. The circuit court, by an order dated April 22, 1985, upheld DOT’S finding of necessity for acquisition of the billboard. The constitutional dilemma herein lies in
SDCL ch. 31-19.
SDCL 31-19-23 provides, inter alia:
In any proceeding in any court of the state of South Dakota which has been or may be instituted ... pursuant to a resolution of necessity for the acquisition of any land or easement or right-of-way in land for the public use, pursuant to §§ 31-19-1 to 31-19-20, inclusive, and chapter 21-35, the petitioner [the condemning authority] may file in the cause ... a declaration of taking ... declaring that said lands are thereby taken for the use of the state of South Dakota.
SDCL 31-19-24 provides that title to the lands specified in the above declaration of taking, vests in the State of South Dakota and such lands are deemed condemned and taken for the state’s use, “and the right to just compensation for the same shall vest in the persons entitled thereto either on the date the decision is rendered at the [circuit court necessity] hearing provided in § 31-19-10.1 or the date the hearing is waived.” SDCL 31-19-36 additionally provides:
In any case in which the state of South Dakota has taken possession of any real property during the course of condemnation proceedings and in advance of final judgment therein, and the state of South Dakota has become irrevocably committed to pay the amount ultimately to be awarded as compensation, it shall be lawful to expend moneys duly appropriated for that purpose in demolishing, moving, or selling existing structures on said land and in erecting public improvements or public works thereon; provided, that in the opinion of the attorney general, the title has been vested in the state of South Dakota.
Finally, SDCL 31-19-38 states: “No appeal in any cause under §§ 31-19-23 to 31-19-34, inclusive, nor any bond or undertaking given therein shall operate to prevent or delay vesting of title, interest or possession *246to such lands in the state of South Dakota.”1
Thus, under the above-cited statutes and the majority opinion herein, the following scenario is envisionable: Proceedings are instituted to condemn a portion of the family farm, business or billboard; a declaration of taking is filed; title to a portion of the family farm, business or billboard vests in the state and is deemed condemned and taken for the state’s use; a circuit court upholds the necessity of the taking; an appeal therefrom is not allowable as a matter of right; the state takes possession of the family farm, business or billboard; compensation is determined but an appeal from the final judgment does not prevent or delay vesting of title, interest or possession; meanwhile, the state demolishes, moves, or sells the family farm, business or billboard and erects public improvements or public works; ultimately, this Court, on proper appeal, reverses the necessity determination but the property has changed, inasmuch as the structures of the family farm, business or billboard have been razed, moved, and/or sold; the taking was unlawful but the owners cannot be returned to the status quo. Such a scenario is procedurally, legally, and realistically possible2 and probable under the rationale of the majority opinion. The above statutes, in combination, permit an unlawful taking of property without due process of law. A vesting of title by bureaucratic edict, without recourse to appeal, is a violation of this state’s due process clause. A family should not have to give up its home, farm, business or billboard simply because some government bureaucrat decides that it is “necessary” to take the property in question and files a declaration of taking. Shades of the American Revolution! Due process entails more protection from unlawful takings than the above statutory scheme provides. Our state statutes on the condemnation of property are constitutionally ill. The state constitution provides: “No person shall be deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law.” S.D. Const, art. VI, § 2.
As for the majority’s determination that a circuit court decision permitting condemnation is not a final judgment from which an appeal may be taken, I also dissent. Numerous courts and jurisdictions, for various reasons, have permitted such appeals. See, e.g., Loughran v. United States, 317 F.2d 896 (D.C.Cir.1963); Van Dyke v. Midnight Sun Mining & Ditch Co., 100 C.C.A. 503, 177 Fed. 85 (9th Cir.1910); 1.67 Acres of Land, Etc. v. State, 225 A.2d 763 (Del. 1967); Couse v. Canal Authority, 194 So.2d 301 (Fla.Ct.App.1967); McLean v. District Court of Eighth Judicial District, 24 Idaho 441, 134 P. 536 (1913); County of Blue Earth v. Stauffenberg, 264 N.W.2d 647 (Minn.1978)3; Park County v. Miller, 117 Mont. 157, 159 P.2d 358 (1945); Erie County Water Authority v. Western New York Water Co., 281 A.D. 1070, 121 N.Y. S.2d 374 (1953); Moses v. State Highway Comm’n, 261 N.C. 316, 134 S.E.2d 664 (1964), cert. denied, 379 U.S. 930, 85 S.Ct. 327, 13 L.Ed.2d 342 (1964); Pittsburgh, C. & T.R. Co. v. Tod, 72 Ohio St. 156, 74 N.E. 172 (1905); Petition of Philadelphia, M. & S. St. Ry. Co., 203 Pa. 354, 53 A. 191 (1902); Harper v. Trenton Housing Authority, 197 Tenn. 257, 271 S.W.2d 185 (1954); and State v. Oshkosh, A. & B. W. R. Co., 100 Wis. 538, 77 N.W. 193 (1898).
The tendency of modern jurisprudence is to extend the right of appeal in interlocutory matters when the public interests require it (that is, when the economic loss to the public by compelling the appellate courts to waste their time over *247points of law which may never be necessary to a final decision of a litigated case is less than will be caused by compelling trial courts and parties litigant to waste their time over the trial of issues of fact which may be rendered nugatory by an adverse decision of the appellate court on points of law), public policy requires that the appellate courts must run the risk of wasting their time. The long drawn out trial of a land damage case is a serious economic waste, if, after the verdict is reached, the appellate court decides that the petitioner had no right to condemn the land in question at all; and consequently it is held in some jurisdictions that an order of condemnation may be appealed from at once, and the questions of law upon which the validity of the taking depends finally determined before the trial upon the measure of compensation.
6 J. Sackman, Nichols on Eminent Domain, § 26.32, at 26-247, 248 (rev. 3rd ed. 1985).
Under SDCL 15-26A-3(4), an appeal to this Court may be taken from a “final order affecting a substantial right, made in special proceedings....” Condemnation proceedings are obviously special proceedings and the circuit court’s decision permitting condemnation is the predominant and controlling issue. When the necessity of the condemnation is upheld, or a declaration of taking is filed, title vests in the state and the land is deemed condemned and taken for the state’s use, SDCL 31-19-24; the state may thereupon demolish, move, or sell existing structures and erect public improvements and works, SDCL 31-19-36; and any appeal does not prevent or delay vesting of title, interest, or possession of the land by the state, SDCL 31-19-38.4 To repeat, the statutes are constitutionally ill. Via these statutes, the circuit court’s decree permitting condemnation, in effect, establishes the condemnor’s title and possession. As to these aspects of the condemnation proceeding, it is a final decree. Petition of Philadelphia, 53 A. at 192. The order or decree permitting condemnation affects substantial rights because title and possession vests in the state and the possibility of demolition and erection of structures closely follows. As the scenario above depicts, these events can transpire and the status quo be irreparably changed before this Court reviews the propriety of the taking. Perhaps, like John the Baptist, I am a cry in the wilderness. Perhaps, also, like John the Baptist, my message rings true.
From the day of the issuance of the Magna Carta, June 15, 1215 A.D., to the pioneer cry of “Wagons West,” free men have longed to call a piece of land or chattel their very own. This longing, this spirit, this right, is of ancient tenure. It is deeply ingrained and embedded in the American way of life. When a government can take and/or destroy property — acquire title — and then advocate “you have no appeal,” my blood begins to boil and my sense of justice stiffens against such absolute state authority. Therefore, I would hold, under the purview of SDCL 15-26A-3(4), that an appeal lies by right from a circuit court order affirming the necessity of the taking and permitting condemnation. A government must respect its citizens’ rights; if it does not, the citizens cannot respect the government; and, if it does not, government cannot respect itself. Therefore, I express my dissidence to absolute state authority, wherever it may be found, and, accordingly, I respectfully dissent.

. SDCL 21-35-20 also provides that appeals in condemnation cases shall not prevent or delay the work or improvements involved.

. Law books are full of cases where homes and neighborhoods are condemned and eliminated by the power of eminent domain for the "public good.” These run the gamut from municipal acquisitions for improvements to federal interstate highway projects. See, generally, Nichols on Eminent Domain. I write not of the quixotic but of the real world.

.Efficiency and economy should not be vaulted, in degree of importance, over the right to possess and own land; therefore, I disagree with the majority opinion’s treatment of the Blue Earth decision.

. SDCL ch. 31-19 is additional and cumulative to SDCL ch. 21-35.