Please ensure Javascript is enabled for purposes of website accessibility

Appeals court: Cross Plains resident must make separate claim in eminent domain dispute

By: Erika Strebel, [email protected]//April 28, 2016//

Appeals court: Cross Plains resident must make separate claim in eminent domain dispute

By: Erika Strebel, [email protected]//April 28, 2016//

Listen to this article
A state court of appeals has ruled that the village of Cross Plains properly compensated a man for land it took for a construction project.The District 4 Court of Appeals ruling Thursday stems from a dispute over an eminent domain proceeding between the village of Cross Plains and resident Kenneth Ransom, who had a two-story home and detached garage at 2014 Main St.
A state court of appeals has ruled that the village of Cross Plains properly compensated Kenneth Ransom for land it took during a 2014 construction project.

A state court of appeals has ruled that the village of Cross Plains properly compensated a man for land it took for a construction project.

The District 4 Court of Appeals ruling Thursday stems from a dispute over an eminent domain proceeding between the village of Cross Plains and resident Kenneth Ransom, who had a two-story home and detached garage at 2014 Main St.

In March 2014, the village took 703 feet of Ransom’s property by eminent domain for a project on Lagoon Street, which formed the southern boundary of the property.

The village offered Ransom $6,650 for the land. Ransom appealed the amount in Dane County Circuit Court, submitting an appraisal that valued the land at $11,300. An appraiser for the village valued the land at $11,400.

Ransom, however, contended that the village owed him an additional $2,900 for a 700-square-foot area also near Lagoon Street where a driveway connected Ransom’s garage with the street. Contractors for the village used the area for four months in 2014 to remove asphalt and store piles of sand, Ransom contended. He also argued that workers drove trucks and heavy equipment over the land during the project, so Ransom and his wife were unable to park in their driveway.

However, in July 2015, Dane County Circuit Court Judge Ellen Berz approved the $11,400 that the village had agreed to pay for the 703 square feet. Ransom appealed, contending he was entitled to the additional $2,900 for the village’s use of the 700-square-foot area. The rental of the area was priced at for $800 and the damaged asphalt and its removal at $2,100.

Ransom argued that the village should have paid for temporary rights to use the 700-square-foot area before the project started because the village knew it would need the rights and because it is common practice to do so at the outset of construction projects. He also contended that he did not need to file a separate legal action to be compensated for the use of the area because the village did not deny using the area.

However, the village of Cross Plains countered that Ransom needed to seek compensation in a separate legal action because the eminent-domain paperwork filed in March 2014 only reflected the taking of the 703 square feet of Ransom’s land, and the temporary taking of the 700 square feet took place afterward, from August 2014 to November 2014.

The three-judge panel for the court of appeals on Thursday affirmed the circuit court’s ruling, saying it was not persuaded by Ransom’s argument. Ransom, the court found, must file a separate action to be compensated for the village’s use of the area during the project.

The court noted that the amount at issue was no more than $267, because the village repaired the asphalt on the driveway and only used the area for four months. That amount, the court said, was so small that the village had no incentive not to pay. Ransom, according to the court, also showed no evidence that the village intended to avoid paying for the use of Ransom’s land or for any other temporary uses associated with the project.

“We acknowledge that it might seem burdensome to Ransom to require him to bring an inverse condemnation claim—that is, a separate action—to recover damages for the temporary easement,” according the court’s decision Thursday. “But there is nothing inherently unfair about the requirement.”

Polls

Should Steven Avery be granted a new evidentiary hearing?

View Results

Loading ... Loading ...

Legal News

See All Legal News

WLJ People

Sea all WLJ People

Opinion Digests