Under Missouri law, the owner of land must have owned it at the time of the taking in order to have standing to bring an inverse condemnation claim. In Hull v. Pleasant Valley School District, No. WD79302 (June 6, 2017), the Missouri Court of Appeals (Western District), a case involving inverse condemnation liability for flooding, concluded that the owners of a golf course who recorded title to the land after the first instance of flooding had standing to bring a total taking claims.
The Hulls purchased the golf course from Mr. Hull's parents in 2005 but didn't record the deed until 2009. The first flood occurred in 2007. After the jury awarded the Hulls $3 million for the total taking (after which the court ordered the Hulls to sign over the deed to the district), the district asserted the Hulls lacked standing because the deed wasn't recorded until after the first instance of flooding. The court of appeals disagreed, concluding that recording a deed is about notice of encumbrances, and doesn't go to who owns the property. Thus, "[n]othing in our case law reflects an intent under the recording statutes to establish a property interest for purposes of determining whether a property owner has standing to bring an inverse-condemnation claim." Slip op. at 5.
Plus, possession is the "visible indicia" of ownership, and the district knew the Hulls actually lived on the property and operated the golf course. "The District introduced no evidence that it dealt with anyone other than the Hulls beginning in 2007 when Mr. Hull alerted the District about the golf-course flooding." Slip op. at 6. Thus, if the taking occurred in 2007 upon the first flood, as the district argued, the Hulls had standing. Moreover, if the taking occurred in 2013 when the big problems happened (as the jury determined), there's no question the Hulls had standing because they had recorded the deed several years earlier. The court upheld the jury's verdict, concluding that under Missouri law, the first flood isn't necessarily the time of the taking, and the damage may only become ascertainable over time. Slip op. at 7.
The flooding’s permanency was not ascertainable in 2007 when the first flooding took place. Sufficient evidence supports the jury’s finding that the tot al and permanent taking occurred in October 2013, at which time, it was indisputable that the Hulls owned the golf-course property. Accordingly, they had a legally cognizable interest and actual injury that conferred standing to bring an inverse-condemnation claim against the District.
Slip op. at 8.
Finally, the court rejected the district's argument that this was a partial taking case, and not -- as the jury concluded -- a total take. The district asserted the flooding only touched on parts of the golf course, not the whole thing. The court, however, disagreed. "We do not believe that Missouri case law requires an inverse -condemnation plaintiff to prove that the entire property has been touched or occupied by the physical incursion (here, flooding) to prevail on a total and permanent takings claim." Slip op. at 11.
Hull v. Pleasant Valley School District, No. WD79302 (Mo. App. June 6, 2017)
