A public entity bringing an inverse claim against some citizens? We're intrigued.
But then we read the caption more carefully and noticed the "City of" part, which caused us to do what we usually do these days when curiosity strikes: we googled it. And we learned something new: there is a City of Bellefontaine Neighbors in Missouri. In addition to having a very friendly name and an imposing motto ("Strong Traditions ... Strong Moral Values"), it also has the distinction of having, "[a]t 22 letters, ... the longest name of any incorporated place in the United States." Who are we to question Wikipedia as a source of accurate information?
With that confusion eliminated, and us having identified the defendant as a municipality, the case now made more sense. But wait, the plaintiff is a utility district, which means that the property allegedly taken was perhaps not private property?
Turns out that was the issue resolved by the Missouri Supreme Court, in a case punted up the food chain by the court of appeals, where the District alleged that the City inversely condemned the District's sewer after the City's contractors, when they were "mudjacking" as part of a road resurfacing project, allowed slurry into the pipes, which eventually hardened. The District had to replace the pipes. The District sued the contractors for trespass, and the City for inverse condemnation.
Long story short: the pipes are not "private property" subject to the protections of the Missouri Constitution's takings clause. The District asserted that the court
should interpret the words “private property” as used in article I, section 26 to include “public property” that is damaged by other unrelated public entities, either by ignoring the word “private,” by defining “private” to include “public,” or by adding by implication the word “public” because there is no good policy reason why just compensation should not be provided to public entities whose property has been taken by another public entity when private entities are so entitled.
Slip op. at 6-7.
That argument was about as successful as you might expect, and the court was having none of it: "In effect, MSD asks the Court to act as a legislature or to add a provision to the constitution that is not there because it would be good public policy." Slip op. at 7.
Private property means private property, and the District's pipes are public property. The court rejected the analogy to United States v. 50 Acres of Land, 469 U.S. 24 (1984), where the U.S. Supreme Court held that the federal government could take property owned by states, and by local governments. Yes, that property isn't "private property" but the feds can take any non-federal property because, well, they're the feds, and the Supremacy Clause and all that.
Of the other state courts which have addressed the issue, all go the same way as Missouri did here, with the exception of California. In Marin Municipal Water Dist. v. City of Mill Valley, 249 Cal. Rptr. 469 (Cal. App. 1988), the court allowed a public water district to sue a municipality in inverse condemnation, because "the law of inverse condemnation is not simply a mirror image of the law of eminent domain." These actions are more like tort and trespass, so, you know, it's cool. Ah, California.
So rest easy, city-with-the-long-name. Damage those District pipes all you like. Either way, we know who is picking up the tab.
This blog is not legal advice. But come on man, you knew that already! Reading this blog does not make you a client, nor are any posts or comments on this blog subject to the attorney-client privilege. Nor should you rely on the posts or comments for counsel on your situation. For legal advice, please retain an attorney licensed in your jurisdiction.
This blog is not sponsored by the author's firm, and the views expressed by the author are just that, his views; they are not the views of his clients, his firm or its clients, or anyone but the author.
