Lessons Learned Disclaimer Opinions expressed are those of the speaker and not the opinions of the WA State Attorney Generals Office or the Attorney General Historic Right of Highway Access ID: 749064
Download Presentation The PPT/PDF document "Highway Access Inverse Condemnation Liti..." is the property of its rightful owner. Permission is granted to download and print the materials on this web site for personal, non-commercial use only, and to display it on your personal computer provided you do not modify the materials and that you retain all copyright notices contained in the materials. By downloading content from our website, you accept the terms of this agreement.
Slide1
Highway AccessInverse Condemnation Litigation
Lessons Learned
Disclaimer: Opinions expressed are those of the speaker and not the opinions of the WA State Attorney General’s Office or the Attorney GeneralSlide2
Historic Right of Highway Access:
Crossing the intervening land of another – easement or permissive use?Slide3
Project:SR 270 Pullman to Idaho State LineSlide4
Temporary BridgeSlide5
Timeline
2001
plan
with frontage
road
approved2001 temporary bridge installed2004 revised plan without frontage road approved2006 construction starts2007 construction completed2007
temporary bridge
removed
2007
litigation starts
2015
litigation completedSlide6
circa 1882
circa
1892Slide7
circa 1935Slide8
circa 1950Slide9
circa 1998Slide10
Inverse Condemnation
(1) taking or damaging
(2) of private property
(3) for public use
(4) without just compensation paid
(5) by a governmental entity that has not instituted formal proceedingsSlide11
Highway Access – Property Right
Right of Reasonable Highway Access:
owners of property abutting a state
highway
RCW
47.50 Highway Management Actnon-abutters with “legal” easement to a state highway WAC 468-51-030Slide12
Plaintiff’s Theories
Grandfathered access under the Highway Access Mgmt. Act
Easement by:
prescriptive easement
implied easement
easement by
necessity
vacated county
road
Abutter by reversion following railroad abandonment
Union Elevator
– right to reasonable
, adequate, and commercially practicable access
under unique factsSlide13
WSDOT’s Approach
f
ailure to exhaust administrative remedies
not an abutter
no railroad abandonment
preemption under the Trails Actdismissed quiet title actions against railroad and county no easementno evidence that use was other than permissiveno common grantorformer road vacated, no private easement retained
subsequent purchaser doctrine
l
andlocked through actions of 1935 predecessor in interestSlide14
Lessons Learned
sufficiency
of
search
for
recordsowner’s oral assertions require substantiationstatements by WSDOT has “farm access” has “informal access”Slide15
Lessons Learned
objective observation
“fell out of
bed”
v.
“patient found on floor”Slide16
Other Matters
landlocked property
p
rivate way of necessity (“private condemnation” – RCW 8.24)
Granite
Beach Holdings, LLC v. Dep’t of Natural Res., 103 Wn. App. 186, 11 P.3d 847 (2000)Williams Place, LLC v. State, 187 Wn. App. 67, 348 P.3d 797(2015) review denied (Sep. 30, 2015)Gamboa v. Clark, 183 Wn. 2d 38, 348 P.3d 1214 (2015)
permissive use v. prescriptive use
ending permissive useSlide17
Conclusion