|
No. 132983
| Michigan Department of Transportation, |
|
Raymond O. Howd |
Plaintiff-Appellant, |
|
Patrick F. Isom |
| v |
(Appeal from Ct of Appeals) |
|
|
(Kent - Buth, G.) |
|
|
| Rodney Tomkins and Darcy Tomkins, |
|
Scott J. Steiner |
| Defendants-Appellees. |
|
|
| __________________________________________ |
|
|
Click to view briefs in Adobe format:
Plaintiff-Appellant's Brief on Appeal>>
Defendants-Appellees' Brief on Appeal>>
Larry Knoerr's Amicus Curiae Brief>>
Larry Knoerr's Supplemental Amicus Curiae Brief>>
Mackinac Center for Public Policy's Amicus Curiae Brief>>
Michigan Association of County Drain Commissioners' Amicus Curiae Brief>>
Michigan Municipal League, Michigan Association of Counties, Michigan Townships Association, County Roads Association of Michigan, and Michigan Municipal Electric Association's Amici Curiae Brief>>
Background
This case arises from construction of the M-6 highway (South Beltline) near Grand Rapids; the highway connects I-96 to M-37 and US 131 by way of a 20-mile limited access highway loop around the city. The Michigan Department of Transportation sought to acquire a 49-foot by 120-foot strip of property for an overpass; the land was part of a larger parcel owned by Rodney and Darcy Tomkins. After the owners rejected MDOT’s offer of $4,200 for the land, MDOT filed a condemnation complaint pursuant to the Uniform Condemnation Procedures Act, MCL 213.51 et seq. Experts for both parties agreed that the fair market value of the strip of land was $3,800. But the property owners also sought payment for $48,200 in damages to their remaining property, which they claimed was diminished in value by its proximity to the M-6 highway. In measuring these “highway effects” damages, the owners’ expert took into account the “dust, dirt, noise, vibration, and smell” from the highway. MDOT argued that § 20(2) of the UCPA, MCL 213.70(2), precluded the owners from presenting evidence of the construction project’s “general effects” as part of determining just compensation. MDOT also argued that the owners’ claim for general highway effects damages failed to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. In response, the property owners contended that just compensation in a partial-taking case must include compensation for any and all causes of diminution in the remaining land’s market value, including highway effects. They further argued that § 20(2) of the UCPA was an impermissible limitation on their right to just compensation under article 10, section 2 of the Michigan Constitution. But the trial court ruled in MDOT’s favor, holding that the M-6 project’s general effects would not be considered in determining the property owners’ just compensation. In a published per curiam opinion, the Court of Appeals reversed, ruling that § 20(2)’s limitation on general damages, as applied to partial taking cases, “impermissibly conflicts with the established constitutional meaning of ‘just compensation,’ which requires that any and all factors relevant to market value be taken into consideration when determining the difference in the remaining property’s value before and after the taking.” To evaluate whether the diminution in value of the remaining parcel was sufficiently “traceable” to the highway project as a whole, the Court of Appeals adopted an “integral and inseparable part” test. The panel ultimately remanded the case to the trial court for further proceedings to determine whether the overpass constituted an integral and inseparable part of the M-6 project. MDOT appeals.
Top of Page
|
