A short one from the Oklahoma Supreme Court.
In Rocket Properties, LLC v. LaFortune, No. 120000 (Jan. 18, 2022), the court issued an order that, in effect, reverses the trial court's dismissal of an inverse condemnation case (we say "in effect" because the Supreme Court was considering a writ of prohibition, not an appeal). The trial court concluded that the inverse claim was governed by the procedural requirements of the Oklahoma Governmental Tort Claims Act.
The Oklahoma Supreme Court has long held that "[c]ondemnation proceedings do not involve a tort." Oklahoma City v. Wells, 91 P.2d 1077 (Okla. 1939). But recently, the legislature amended the statute to change the definition of "tort" to include a legal wrong or violation of a "duty imposed by general law, statute, the Constitution of the State of Oklahoma ...[,]" to specify that the tort claims statute governs "tort suits alleging constitutional rights." The trial court concluded this meant that inverse condemnation claims are now included.
No, the Supreme Court concluded, inverse claims are still not governed by the tort claims statute. The amendments merely "broadened the kind of torts for which the State will have immunity to include not only torts arising from common law, but also torts arising from statute and the constitution." Slip op. at 5. But "condemnation proceedings do not involve a tort. Condemnation involves the taking of private property for public use." Slip op. at 5. The only relevant questions are whether a taking has occurred, and if so the amount of compensation. "The 2014 legislative amendment to the GTCA did not change this." Slip op. at 5.
Takings ain't tort. Seems about right to us.
Rocket Properties, LLC v. LaFortune, No. 120000 (Okla. Jan. 18, 2022)
