This one reminds us of a recent decision by the Texas Court of Appeals, because the Mississippi Supreme Court, like the Texas court, concluded that an inverse condemnation plaintiff lacked standing because it didn’t own the property at the time of the taking. Russell Real Property Services, LLC v. Mississippi, No. 2015-CA-01306-SCT (Sep. 15, 2016).
But where the Texas court’s analysis failed to satisfy, we think the Mississippi court’s approach was much more sound.
Russell claimed it owned a half interest in property which the State leased to the City of Pass Christian for use as a harbor and related development, and sued both for inverse condemnation. But Russell had only been quitclaimed its interest from the prior owner after the city and the state had entered into the lease. It claimed the taking occurred when the Secretary of State executed the lease.
But even applying Mississippi’s “liberal” standing rules, the court concluded that Russell didn’t have standing to assert the takings claim, especially because the quitclaim deed from the owner at the time of the lease (who presumably would possess the takings claim) did not expressly convey the right of action to Russell.
The court also rejected Russell’s arguments that the taking continued (was “ongoing”), and that the taking occurred when it received its one-half interest in the property. Russell provided no authority to support this theory, and the court summarily dismissed it.
Russell Real Property Services, LLC v. Mississippi, No. 2015-CA-01306-SCT (Miss. Sep. 15, 2016)