Thank you for sharing!

Your article was successfully shared with the contacts you provided.
Click here for the full text of this decision FACTS:In 1947, the state of Texas acquired 29.57 acres in Galveston County from the predecessors of George and Patricia Delany for the construction of Interstate Highway 45. Originally, I-45 intersected a nearby road called Johnny Palmer Road at grade level. By 1965 the state began constructing an overpass for Johnny Palmer Road at the intersection. For this project the state condemned an additional 5.733 acre tract, known as Parcel 9, from the Delanys’ predecessors. Parcel 9, which abuts the northbound frontage road of I-45, was acquired for the overpass itself, as well as accompanying drainage facilities, an embankment, a park-and-ride lot, and an exit referred to by the parties as the Connector Road. This road skirted the eastern edge of Parcel 9 in a bell-shaped curve, connecting the I-45 northbound frontage road with Johnny Palmer Road. In its 1965 petition for condemnation of Parcel 9, the state pleaded that “plaintiff, in the exercise of the police power for the preservation of human life and safety, and under existing laws, has designated said highway as a Controlled Access Highway, and roads are to be built as a part of said highway whereby the right of ingress and egress to or from the remaining property of defendants abutting on said highway is not to be denied.” The Delany Property consists of 3.48 acres of the “remaining property” and abuts the eastern edge of Parcel 9. The Delany Property remains undeveloped and is presently used as grazing land; no driveways were ever constructed to join it to the adjacent Connector Road. In 1998 the state demolished the Connector Road for safety reasons. Following this removal, the Delany Property continued to abut Parcel 9, but no longer directly abutted any public road. The nearest remaining road to the Delany Property is the northbound frontage road of I-45, from which it is separated by the now roadless Parcel 9. Nevertheless, the state contends the Delanys retain reasonable access to the northbound frontage road because they are entitled to request, and the state would be obligated to grant, driveway access across Parcel 9. The Delanys sued the state for inverse condemnation, arguing the removal of the Connector Road resulted in substantial and material impairment of access to their property, a compensable taking under the Texas Constitution. Experts for the state and the Delanys agreed the property value of their land before the removal of the Connector Road was $2.50 per square foot; the Delanys presented evidence that the property value following removal, assuming access was unavailable, was $.25 per square foot. The trial court found that the Delanys had an easement of access to the Connector Road that was destroyed by its removal. Finding that the state had “abandoned” Parcel 9, the court found that the Delany Property was landlocked, and that alternatively any proposed driveways across it would be unsafe. The trial court awarded as damages $341,075 � 90 percent of the value of the land � and, after pre-judgment interest and $5,000 in sanctions, a total of $497,637.80. The court of appeals affirmed the trial court. HOLDING:The court reverses the portion of the court of appeals’ judgment that affirmed the impairment claim. The 1965 Petition only stated that “roads are to be built as a part of said highway whereby the right of ingress and egress to or from the remaining property of defendants abutting on said highway is not to be denied.” Plainly this language only preserves general access to I-45 (“said highway”) and did not grant anything more specific. Thus, by virtue of the 1965 Petition, the Delanys possess a general easement of access, and not one specific to the Connector Road. The Delanys would be entitled to compensation if the removal of the Connector Road substantially and materially impaired access to their property. The evidence at trial focused on two proposed driveways. While the Delanys’ expert testified that two separate driveways across Parcel 9 would require sharp turns and removal of a guardrail, nothing in the record establishes that reasonable access required these two separate driveways. OPINION:Per curiam.

Want to continue reading?
Become a Free ALM Digital Reader.

Benefits of a Digital Membership:

  • Free access to 1 article* every 30 days
  • Access to the entire ALM network of websites
  • Unlimited access to the ALM suite of newsletters
  • Build custom alerts on any search topic of your choosing
  • Search by a wide range of topics

*May exclude premium content
Already have an account?


ALM Legal Publication Newsletters

Sign Up Today and Never Miss Another Story.

As part of your digital membership, you can sign up for an unlimited number of a wide range of complimentary newsletters. Visit your My Account page to make your selections. Get the timely legal news and critical analysis you cannot afford to miss. Tailored just for you. In your inbox. Every day.

Copyright © 2021 ALM Media Properties, LLC. All Rights Reserved.