"Because The Government Says So" Is Not A Substitute For Required Compensaation

7/ “THEY DON’T GET TO KEEP IT WITHOUT PAYING JUST BECAUSE THEY TOOK IT”:  Then-Justice Gildea wrote for the Supreme Court against uncompensated government taking of private property in this case.

The Hebert family registered six plots of land on the north shore of Mitchell Lake in 1953.  The City of Fifty Lakes built a gravel road abutting the north edge of the Herbert plots and other lakefront properties in 1971.  The public used the road for over 30 years.  When re-surveying the plots in 2004, the Heberts discovered that the City had shaved off strips up to 49 feet wide off the north sides of the plots.

The City refused to shift the road-bed.  The City refused to compensate the Heberts, claiming that too much time had passed before the Heberts made a claim.  The City claimed that it had a right to preserve an uncompensated “de facto” taking of the Hebert land.

First, Justice Gildea rejected the City’s claim that it had earned the right to keep the Heberts’ land without compensation in this case through “de facto” taking of the property.  She wrote that “eminent domain proceedings provide private landowners with notice, due process of law, and the opportunity to secure just and fair compensation.  In contrast to the government’s initiation of eminent domain proceedings, a de facto taking would operate informally in this case because there was no court action or formal process initiated by the City.  Allowing the City to acquire the land at issue here by de facto taking would operate in the same way as if the City acquired the land by adverse possession in that in both situations, a landowner is deprived of rights to land due to actions of another.  For all of these reasons, we hold that the City did not acquire an interest in the land at issue by de facto taking.”

Second, Justice Gildea ruled that the passage of time would not bar relief for the property owners if the incursion onto their land was “continuing."

Finally, Justice Gildea returned the case to the trial court for determinations of fact and, if justified, the form and amount of relief for the land owners that should be granted.

She also noted: “Our holding should not be misinterpreted to preclude owners of Torrens property from seeking compensation under the Takings Clause in either the United States or Minnesota Constitution. This issue is not before us and we express no opinion on it.”


READ THE FULL CASE DECISION: 

John Wesley Hebert, et al., Respondents, vs. City of Fifty Lakes, Appellant.

January 17, 2008 2008-008            https://mn.gov/law-library-stat/archive/supct/0801/OPA060215-0117.pdf