A short but mildly interesting one from the Arizona Court of Appeals, Maricopa County v. Rovey, No. 1 CA-CV 190659 (Dec. 29, 2020).
The County sought to condemn portions of the Rovey land for the expansion of existing roads. The roads had been used "as public roadways for decades," slip op. at 2, and ownership of the land on which the roads sat was disputed. The Roveys asserted they owned it in fee and the County had to pay compensation for the taking, while the County claimed it already owned an easement. All of the cases -- the County's condemnation, the Roveys' quiet title, trespass, and inverse condemnation counterclaims, and their stand-alone claims for trespass and inverse -- were consolidated.
The owners argued that application of the rule of "strips and gores" (a presumption that unless expressly otherwise noted, a conveyance of a lot adjacent to a road conveys to the center of the roadway) meant they owned the land under the road. But the court of appeals noted that the rule also includes a corollary that the owner's fee in such cases is also subject to a public easement. There was no evidence that the presumption should not apply, and the court quieted title in the Roveys, but also upheld the County's claim to an easement.
As for the inverse condemnation counterclaim, the court concluded the claim was personal and did not transfer when the Roveys purchased the property after the roads had been paved by the County in the 1970s and 80s:
Here, it is undisputed the Roveys took title to the land decades after Perryville Road was built. When the Roveys acquired title, Perryville Road was in use and obvious. Moreover, the documents transferring title to the Roveys did not also expressly transfer the right to damages, which was personal and did not run with the land. Accordingly, the Roveys did not acquire that right. Id. Nor have the Roveys shown that any exception to this Boyd rule should apply.
Slip op. at 8.
Maricopa County v. Rovey, No. 1 CA-CV 19-0659 (Ariz. Ct. App. Dec. 29, 2020)
