Rupert v. City of Rapid City

Summary

The South Dakota Supreme Court reviewed an inverse-condemnation action arising from the City of Rapid City's use of deicer, which allegedly killed trees on the plaintiffs' property. The Court affirmed summary judgment establishing the City's inverse-condemnation liability but reversed the trial court's pretrial determination concerning the proper measure and permanence of damages, remanding for the fact finder to determine whether the damage was temporary or permanent.

Holdings

1. The Ruperts presented sufficient evidence that the City's deicer caused a peculiar injury to their property that was different in kind, rather than merely degree, from any injury suffered by the general public. Summary judgment establishing the City's inverse condemnation liability was therefore proper.
2. The trial court erred by deciding on summary judgment that the property damage was temporary and that restoration and replacement costs were the proper measure of compensation. Whether the damage was temporary or permanent was a fact question for the jury, and evidence of diminution in fair market value should have been admitted.
3. SDCL 21-35-23 does not expressly authorize attorney fees in inverse condemnation actions. The Ruperts were therefore not entitled to attorney fees under that statute, and the circuit court properly denied their request.
4. When a governmental entity's authorized conduct constitutes a taking or damaging of property compensable under Article VI, section 13 of the South Dakota Constitution, the landowner's exclusive remedy is just compensation through inverse condemnation, not separate negligence or trespass damages.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the Ruperts presented sufficient evidence that the City's conduct caused a peculiar injury to their property, different in kind from injury suffered by the general public, to support inverse condemnation.
2. Whether the trial court properly determined before trial that restoration and replacement costs, together with loss-of-shade, ornamental, aesthetic, and enjoyment damages, were the proper measure of just compensation.
3. Whether SDCL 21-35-23 authorizes an award of attorney fees in an inverse condemnation action.
4. Whether the Ruperts could recover separately under negligence or trespass theories for the same governmental damaging of their property.

Disposition

reversed_and_remanded