A state law providing that airport boards may exercise the powers of the municipalities which appoint them, but which also requires a condemnation action by an airport board “be instituted in the names of the municipalities jointly,” prohibits an airport board from instituting an eminent domain suit in its own name. In Spokane Airports v. RMA, Inc., No. 26538-2-III (Apr. 28, 2009), the Washington Court of Appeals held that any condemnation suit filed by the airport board that is not in the names of the municipalities lacks subject matter jurisdiction.
The City of Spokane and Spokane County jointly operate the Spokane International Airport, and formed the Spokane Airport Board to operate it. The airport needed to remove some buildings, including several which were leased to RMA, so the city and the county passed a resolution of taking condemning the leases. The Airport Board, purporting to act pursuant to the authority in the resolution, instituted a condemnation lawsuit in its own name.
The Washington state law empowering airport boards (Wa. Rev. Code § 14.08.200) provides that “[c]ondemnation proceedings shall be instituted, in the names of themunicipalities jointly, and the property acquired shall be held by themunicipalities as tenants in common.” RMA asserted the condemnation action was invalid because it was the product of an illegal delegation of eminent domain power from the city and county to the Airport Board. In other words, the Airport Board had no authority to sue in condemnation in its own name.
The court of appeals began its analysis by noting “[w]e strictly construe statutes that delegate the state’s sovereign power of eminent domain.” Slip op. at 11 (citing Pub. Util. Dist. No 2 of Grant County v. N. Am. Foreign Trade Zone Indus., 151 P.3d 176 (Wa. 2007)). The court distinguished State v. King County, 446 P.2d 193 (Wa. 1968), a case which held there was no illegal delegation of eminent domain power where a local board brought a condemnation suit in the state board’s name under a statute with wording similar to section 14.08.200:
King County is distinguishable. There, the local board complied with a requirement set out in the resolution—that any condemnation action be filed in the name of the state board. Here, the joint resolution contained no such requirement. And Spokane Airports brought the condemnation petition in its name only. The joint resolution here attempts to delegate powers of eminent domain to Spokane Airports, not just ministerial functions.
The City and the County did not have authority to delegate their power to condemn to Spokane Airports. At most, they could authorize Spokane Airports to exercise the ministerial duties attendant to taking RMA’s property by condemnation.
Slip op. at 12-13. The court also held that the delegation issue was a question of subject matter jurisdiction, and could be raised for the first time on appeal:
We conclude that Spokane Airports had no authority to condemn property, that its activities here were more than ministerial, and that the superior court then had no jurisdiction over the subject matter of this controversy.
Slip op. 16. Our thanks to the Amateur Law Professor blog for notice about this decision.