We like it when courts include photos and maps.
The Indiana Supreme Court's ruling in State of Indiana v. Franciscan Alliance, Inc., No. 245-PL-118 (Oct. 31, 2024) isn't all that surprising. After all, the State's eminent domain action did not take access to the undeveloped property, and the owner was not entitled to compensation for the change in traffic flow brought about by the closure of an intersection. This increased the "circuitry of travel," but did not cut off the parcel.
Here's how the court framed the issue:
Here, there is no question that the State’s condemnation of Franciscan’s 0.632-acre strip of land is a taking requiring just compensation. Likewise, it is indisputable that this condemnation amounted to a taking of SCP’s easement rights over that strip of land. But the record confirms that the State has already paid compensation for those easement rights. Thus, the only question for us to resolve is whether either Franciscan or SCP was entitled to damages stemming from the State’s closure of Fairview Road’s intersection with State Road 37.
Slip op. at 7.
The court held that the "long-established rule" is "when a property's access points remain unchanged, the landowner cannot recover damages related only to increased circuitry of travel between the property and a public roadway because such damages do not result from the taking of a property right." Id. Because the closure of the nearby intersection didn't (directly) affect the owner's points of access and only "made travel a longer route," no property right was in play, and thus no compensation. Slip op. at 8. Compensation is reserved for those situations in which access to land is actually or constructively cut off.
Here's the rule:
Today, we reaffirm our long-established rule that when a road-improvement project leaves a property’s access points unchanged, a landowner cannot recover damages from changes in traffic flow between their property and a public road, as those damages do not result from the taking of a property right. And we hold that here, because the State’s construction project did not affect the owners’ access points to their properties, damages from the intersection closure were not compensable as a matter of law.
Slip op. at 2.
We understand that this is a long-standing rule. But does it make sense? Not to us, and it seems more technical than practical, as we noted in a brief long ago. Might the "injurious affection" approach be more realistic? We think so. But for now, that doctrine hasn't crept south of the border from Canada.
State of Indiana v. Franciscan Alliance, Inc., No. 245-PL-118 (Ind. Oct. 31, 2024)
