The line between negligence torts and inverse condemnation can be a fine one. In Roman Realty, LLC v. City of Morgantown, No. 220587 (June 11, 2024), the West Virginia Supreme Court came down on the tort side.
Now before we go on, a caution: technically speaking the claimant did not assert an inverse condemnation claim. Rather, after the city removed trees and altered the slope of land such that surface water increased on the owner's land, it brought a petition for mandamus to compel the city to institute eminent domain proceedings. There are places that approach it that way.
Here's the gravamen of the petition:
In its verified petition for writ of mandamus to compel eminent domain proceedings, Petitioner alleged that during project construction, eleven trees were removed from its property and “approximately 1,000 square feet of Petitioner’s property was excavated and used as a dump site.” Additionally, Petitioner stated that eight additional trees were heavily damaged by the project. Finally, Petitioner averred that the slope of its property was greatly altered and surface water increased as a result of Respondent’s activities, leading to “a massive issue of surface water” on Petitioner’s property.
Slip op. at 2.
The trial court granted summary judgment to the city, because the owner could sue in tort (and thus has an adequate remedy at law, and thus no mandamus).
The Supreme Court affirmed. It first acknowledged that the West Virginia Constitution requires just compensation or damages when property has been taken. [B]ut it does not mention or require that such compensation be in the form of eminent domain." Slip op. at 4. Thus, a property owner's rights may be protected if West Virginia law recognizes a tort remedy here.
The court next distinguished such claims against the state (as opposed to claims against a municipality). Yes, the mandamus-to-compel-eminent-domain is a well-settled feature of West Virginia procedure. But that is only in cases against the State, because the State has sovereign immunity from tort claims. But that immunity does not necessarily cover municipalities, which can be sued in tort for damages. And here, the city's lawyer at oral argument conceded that the city does not enjoy "blanket immunity" for torts. Slip op. at 6-7 ("Because Respondent’s counsel plainly stated there was no blanket immunity for Respondent, Respondent did not raise statutory immunity in its amended summary judgment motion before the circuit court, and the circuit court did not address statutory immunity in its order, the Tort Claims Act is not a bar to Petitioner’s ability to receive just compensation through a tort action in this case.").
The court also rejected the owner's argument that a tort claim for damages is not as good as the just compensation remedy. No, the court concluded, "remedies available to a property owner in a tort action against a municipality are, in fact, the same as those available from the State in a condemnation proceeding." Slip op. at 7.
Because the owner was granted leave to amend its complaint to allege a tort claim for damages, the court was satisfied nothing would be lost substantively (at least in this case, as opposed to a future case where the municipality did assert a greater scope of sovereign immunity). Here, the owner merely alleged the incorrect cause of action, an action that amendment would remedy.
Roman Realty, LLC v. City of Morgantown, No. 22-587 (WV June 11, 2024)
