State Ex Rel. Road Commission v. Salt Lake City Public Board of Education

368 P.2d 468, 13 Utah 2d 56, 1962 Utah LEXIS 145

• Court: Utah Supreme Court
• Decided: January 5, 1962
• Docket: 9424
• Status: Published

Opinions

McDonough, justice.

The State Road Commission, in connection with the construction of a new freeway-through Salt Lake City (Interstate Highway IS) found it necessary to condemn the Franklin'School, belonging to the Salt Lake City Board of Education. Possession was taken by stipulation of counsel and pursuant to an order of court made thereon April 20, 1960, and the question of compensation was reserved for trial.

The Board in its answer asked for $550,000 as the market value of the property at the time of its appropriation.¹ At the pretrial hearing, the defendant requested and was allowed to amend to ask for $709,-000 on the stated theory that it was entitled to damages equal to the replacement cost of a school of equal quality, rather than the market value at the time of taking.

The plaintiff, through the attorney general, took the position that the defendant was entitled to no compensation whatsoever; or in the alternative that damages would be limited to those first claimed in the answer. The court then set a hearing to determine the question, among others, whether the plaintiff should be required to pay for the property. Thereafter the plaintiff moved for summary judgment, arguing that inasmuch as the property was merely being transferred from one public use and one public agency to another, it was not obliged to pay. The trial court denied plaintiff’s motion, whereupon it filed this petition for interlocutory appeal, urging that if this court ruled favorable to its position, that would eliminate the necessity of the trial on the matter of damages, and we granted the petition.

Plaintiff cites authorities for the proposition that one agency of the state, acting pursuant to statutory duty, is not required to pay compensation for taking public property held by another state agency.² It relies on the case of the School District of Borough of Speers v. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania,³ wherein the court said:

“(It) has always been held that the Commonwealth may take property of a political subdivision or agency without payment therefor, (citing authorities), the right to compensation in such cases being only a matter of grace or allowance by the Legislature.”

Our consideration of that case and other authorities relied on indicates that the resolution of such a problem depends on the intent shown in the particular statute involved.⁴ Therefore the critical inquiry here is whether our legislature intended that a school board’s property should he taken for highway purposes without being paid for it.

The basis for the exercise of the power of eminent domain is set forth in Chapter 34, Title 78, U.C.A.1953. It is important to note that the act shows that the legislature had in mind that necessity may require that property devoted to one public use may be taken from its public owner if it was required for a different and more necessary public use. But in spite of this awareness, it made no distinction between the method of taking public or private property. It is true that the statute does not state specifically whether compensation is to be paid to the public agency from which it is taken. But without making any distinction between the method of taking public or private property, the statute requires any condemnor, whoever or whatever it may be, without any exception, to take all of the essential steps to condemnation. It is required that “all owners” ⁵ of the property taken should be named as defendants in the complaint;⁶ that the “value of the property sought to be condemned” shall be “separately assessed” ⁷ and that the taker pay the sum of money so assessed “within thirty days.” ⁸

If there be any uncertainty as to the meaning and the proper application of the statute, either from its language or its failure to make express provision for circumstances in which it may be found to operate, it is proper to look both to' the purpose for which it was created, and to the practical aspects of its operation in order to assist in determining the legislative intent.⁹,

The gravamen of the plaintiff’s argument is that it should not be supposed that the legislature would require that one public agency, under the necessity of taking the property of another, should compensate it because that would be the same as taking public money out of one pocket and putting into another. This argument may appear on the surface to have some merit, and it would in fact have some validity if the resources of the state could be regarded as one unified fund. But the argument is not sound, because that is not the fact. The fallacy is apparent when consideration is given to the means the legislature has created for the raising of the funds for •the operation of the individual school districts in the state. It has provided a comprehensive and finely balanced plan for raising the funds for the various school dis■tricts and delegated responsibilities in connection with the raising and management of such funds to the various school boards. 'The tax funds so collected in the school ■districts are not covered into the general fund for the running of the state government at large, but are collected for the •particular purpose of operating the public •schools. If an individual state agency such ■as the Road Commission could reach over and take a property such as this Franklin School, worth several hundred thousand ■dollars, from a single school board, that would disrupt the balanced plan for the financing of schools. As a practical matter it would create insuperable obstacles for school boards in managing their schools. We see nothing either in the express words of the statute or in its nature or purpose which suggests that the legislature intended any such result.

The incongruity is even more apparent when it is realized that this project is not just a state highway but is part of a federal interstate system which is being constructed not only for Utah but for the whole United States. This principle is recognized by the federal government, which is participating in the cost of construction, including the acquisition of the right of way, to the extent of about 90% of the total cost. While the fact that the federal government is participating in the cost because the road is for the benefit of the entire nation has no bearing on determination of the legal issues involved, and would not be admissible in evidence, it does point up dramatically how incongruous and inequitable it would be to impose the entire cost of the right of way upon this individual school board.

From the language of the eminent domain statute, as well as upon the basis of its purpose and practical application, it is our conclusion that the legislature intended that public property of the character of this Franklin School should be taken and compensated for the same as if. it had been taken from a private owner.

Affirmed. No costs awarded.

WADE, C. J., and CROCKETT, J„ concur.

1 . This is the measure of damages quite generally recognized. See State By and Through Road Commission v. Peterson et al., 12 Utah 2d -, 366 P.2d 76.

2 . In re Condemnation of Land by Pennsylvania Turnpike Commission v. Somerset County, 347 Pa. 643, 32 A.2d 910; State Highway Commission of New Jersey v. City of Elizabeth, 102 N.J.Eq. 221, 140 A. 335; Orgel, Valuation Under Eminent Domain, 2d Ed., Sec. 42; 2 Nichols on Eminent Domain, Sec. 5.9 at p. 223; 56 A.L.R. 365 at 366.

3 . 383 Pa. 206, 117 A.2d 702, 703.

4 . School District of Borough of Speers v. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, footnote 3, supra; State by State Highway Commissioner v. Cooper, 24 N.J. 261, 131 A.2d 756; State ex rel. State Highway Commissioner v. City of Albuquerque, 67 N.M. 383, 355 P.2d 925.

5 . Sec. 53 — 4-8, U.C.A.1953, provides that school hoards may “take, hold, lease, sell and convey real and personal property” in their own names.

6 . Sec. 78-34-6(2), U.C.A.1953.

7 . Sec. 78-34 — 10(1), U.C.A.1953.

8 . Sec. 78-34-13, U.C.A.1953.

9 . See Bateman v. Board of Examiners, 7 Utah 2d 221, 322 P.2d 381.