Vandertoll v. Commonwealth

110 S.W.3d 789 (Ky. 2003) · Supreme Court of Kentucky · May 22, 2003 · No. 2001-SC-0256-DG, 2001-SC-1065-DG, 2001-SC-1066-DG

Summary

The Supreme Court of Kentucky addressed consolidated appeals concerning former landowners’ statutory right to repurchase property acquired through condemnation under KRS 416.670. The court held that applying the amended statute depended on whether the eight-year development period expired after the 1980 amendment, that claims under the statute were subject to a five-year limitations period, and that the period did not begin until the Transportation Cabinet provided the required notice. The court affirmed the Court of Appeals, including the judgment against the Vandertolls because their redemption right accrued before the amendment.

Court
Supreme Court of Kentucky
Writing for the Court
Justice Stumbo; Chief Justice Lambert; Justice Cooper; Justice Graves; Justice Johnstone; Justice Keller; Justice Wintersheimer
Jurisdiction
Kentucky
Decision date
May 22, 2003
Docket number
2001-SC-0256-DG, 2001-SC-1065-DG, 2001-SC-1066-DG
Procedural posture
Consolidated discretionary review of Court of Appeals decisions involving claims by former condemnees to repurchase surplus property under KRS 416.670.
Standard of review
De novo review of statutory interpretation and limitations questions; appellate review of summary judgment and legal conclusions.
Precedential value
Published opinion of the Supreme Court of Kentucky; binding Kentucky precedent.
Parties
Jay W. Vandertoll, Dr. Donald J. Vandertoll, Commonwealth of Kentucky, Department of Transportation, Bureau of Highways, Don C. Kelly, as Secretary of Transportation, and Transportation Cabinet, Commonwealth of Kentucky, Jerry Anglin, as Commissioner of Highways v. Commonwealth of Kentucky, Transportation Cabinet, Elmo Martin and Martha Martin, His Wife, Everett R. Thompson, Jr., and Deborah T. Harris, as Co-Executors of the Estate of Everett R. Thompson, Denny Moore, Southside Real Estate Investors, Inc.
Disposition
affirmed

Topics

eminent domainreal estatestatutory interpretationremediesappellate procedure

Practice areas

real estateeminent domainstatutory interpretationremediesappellate procedure

Questions Presented

  1. Whether applying the 1980 amendment to KRS 416.670 to condemnations occurring more than eight years before the amendment would be impermissibly retroactive.
  2. What statute of limitations applies to claims arising under KRS 416.670.
  3. Whether the Transportation Cabinet's failure to provide actual notice of the right to repurchase tolls or delays the limitations period.
  4. Whether the Cabinet's unpreserved contention that it had begun design on highway projects required consideration on appeal.

Holdings

  1. The 1980 amendment to KRS 416.670 may be applied to condemnations for which the statutory eight-year development period expired after the amendment, but it may not be applied to condemnations for which the eight-year period expired before the amendment. Accordingly, the Thompsons and Martins had statutory claims, while the Vandertolls did not.
  2. The five-year limitations period in KRS 413.120(2), governing actions upon a liability created by statute, applies to claims arising under KRS 416.670.
  3. The notice required by KRS 416.670(2) is a condition precedent to accrual of a condemnee's cause of action, and the Cabinet's failure to provide the required notice delays commencement of the five-year limitations period.
  4. The court would not consider the Cabinet's contention that it had begun design on highway projects because the Cabinet did not establish that the issue was preserved in the record.

Key quotations

It is the failure of the condemning authority to begin development within eight years, and not the condemnation, which entitles the current owner the opportunity to repurchase such surplus property. (794)
Shall means shall. (796)
The statutorily mandated notice requirement is a condition precedent to the accrual of the landowners' cause of action under KRS 416.670. (796)
The clear and unequivocal language of the statute states that the Cabinet is charged with making the condemnees aware of their rights under KRS 416.670; therefore, its failure to effect such notice delays the running of the statute of limitations on claims arising pursuant to the statute until notice is properly given. (797)

Factual background

The Transportation Cabinet condemned the Thompsons' land in 1978, the Martins' land in 1979, and the Vandertolls' land in 1967 for highway projects. Portions of the condemned properties were not developed for the purposes for which they were acquired and were later treated as surplus. The Thompsons and Martins sought to repurchase their property under KRS 416.670, while the Vandertolls sought to repurchase a surplus parcel but had experienced the statutory eight-year development period before the statute was amended in 1980.

Procedural history

The Thompson and Martin matters proceeded from circuit-court decisions concerning the applicability, limitations period, and notice requirements of KRS 416.670; the Court of Appeals reversed or affirmed in favor of the former landowners on the common legal issues. In Vandertoll, the Jefferson Circuit Court dismissed the claim, and the Court of Appeals ultimately affirmed after remand in light of Kelly v. Thompson. The Supreme Court of Kentucky granted discretionary review and consolidated the appeals, affirming all three Court of Appeals decisions.

Court Document

Open PDF
Loading document…