Interstate Northborough Partnership v. State
45 Tex. Sup. Ct. J. 40, 66 S.W.3d 213, 2001 Tex. LEXIS 97 (2001)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Damages to a remainder property resulting from its increased proximity to a roadway are compensable special damages, not noncompensable community damages, if the injury is peculiar to the property and affects it in a special, unique way that is different in kind, not just degree, from neighboring properties.
Facts:
- Interstate Northborough Partnership (INP) owned a 4.8-acre commercial property featuring an eight-story office building set back 96 feet from the Interstate 45 frontage road.
- The property included a landscaped front yard, which served as a 'buffer' zone, contributing to its 'park-like' or 'campus-type' setting.
- The State of Texas initiated a project to widen I-45 and condemned 0.865 acres of INP's property to construct new frontage road lanes.
- After the condemnation, INP's building was only 22.5 feet from the new frontage road.
- This new proximity caused the building to violate a Houston city setback ordinance and a deed restriction.
- The State also erected two 6.5-foot-tall retaining walls near INP's driveways, which were also shortened by the taking.
- The changes made some of the property's driveways unsafe and eliminated several surface parking spaces.
Procedural Posture:
- The State of Texas filed a condemnation suit against Interstate Northborough Partnership (INP) in a Texas trial court.
- The trial court denied the State's pre-trial motions to exclude evidence regarding increased proximity and diminished access.
- A jury found for INP and awarded $1,000,000 in damages; the trial court entered judgment on the verdict.
- The State, as appellant, appealed to the Texas court of appeals.
- The court of appeals reversed the trial court's judgment, holding that the proximity damages were noncompensable community damages, and remanded for a new trial.
- INP, the landowner, appealed this decision to the Supreme Court of Texas.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
In a partial condemnation case, do damages to a remainder commercial property resulting from increased proximity to a roadway—causing the loss of a buffer zone, curb appeal, and placing the building in violation of a setback ordinance—constitute compensable special damages rather than noncompensable community damages?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice Baker
Yes, damages resulting from the property's increased proximity to the roadway constitute compensable special damages. The court reasoned that an injury is special, not community, based on the nature of the injury and whether it affects the remainder property in a unique way. Here, the condemnation uniquely harmed INP's property by eliminating its 'park-like' buffer zone, a key feature contributing to its marketability, and by placing the building in violation of a city ordinance and deed restrictions. Unlike the general inconveniences in State v. Schmidt, these damages were different in kind, not merely in degree, from those suffered by neighboring properties, which were either vacant or experienced only minor changes and did not suffer similar ordinance violations or loss of unique features.
Analysis:
This decision refines the distinction between compensable 'special' damages and noncompensable 'community' damages established in State v. Schmidt. It clarifies that even if multiple properties suffer from increased proximity to a public work, the damage to a specific property can be deemed 'special' if it destroys a unique, value-adding characteristic or causes the property to violate local ordinances. The ruling provides a crucial precedent for landowners to recover for seemingly intangible losses like 'curb appeal' and the loss of a 'buffer zone' when those losses are directly tied to the unique nature of their property and are a direct result of the government's taking.
Unlock the full brief for Interstate Northborough Partnership v. State