Utah Court of Appeals
When can property owners recover severance damages in condemnation cases? UDOT v. Ivers Explained
Summary
UDOT condemned 0.048 acres of Arby’s 0.416-acre commercial lot to construct a frontage road as part of a Highway 89 widening project that eliminated a nearby intersection and elevated the highway. Arby’s sought severance damages for alleged loss of access and view/visibility to their remaining property.
Analysis
Background and Facts
The Utah Department of Transportation condemned 0.048 acres of Arby’s 0.416-acre commercial property to construct a frontage road as part of a Highway 89 widening project near Farmington. The project eliminated the Highway 89/Shepard Lane intersection and elevated the highway, creating an underpass. While Arby’s retained access via Shepard Lane and could reach Highway 89 through the frontage road (albeit requiring a half-mile detour north or south), the elevation of Highway 89 obstructed the restaurant’s eastern view and visibility from the highway.
Key Legal Issues
The central issue was whether Arby’s could recover severance damages under Utah Code section 78-34-10(2) for: (1) loss of reasonable access resulting from the intersection closure and highway elevation, and (2) loss of view and visibility caused by the elevated highway. The trial court granted UDOT’s motion in limine and denied Arby’s motion for partial summary judgment on both claims.
Court’s Analysis and Holding
The Court of Appeals affirmed, applying the precedent from State v. Harvey Real Estate. The court held that severance damages require damages “directly caused by the taking itself and by the condemnor’s use of the land taken.” Here, Arby’s property was taken to construct a frontage road, but the alleged damages stemmed from the intersection closure and highway elevation—activities that occurred on property not taken from Arby’s. UDOT could have undertaken these construction activities independently of the taking. Regarding access, the court noted that property owners have a right to reasonable access, not access through specific intersections. The frontage road provided reasonable access despite the circuitous route.
Practice Implications
This decision reinforces that severance damages claims must demonstrate a direct causal connection between the property taking and alleged damages. Practitioners should carefully distinguish between damages flowing from the actual taking and construction on the severed property versus damages from other aspects of a broader construction project. The commercial nature of property does not alter this analysis, and the right of access is limited to reasonable access, not optimal or convenient access.
Case Details
Case Name
UDOT v. Ivers
Citation
2005 UT App 519
Court
Utah Court of Appeals
Case Number
No. 20050246-CA
Date Decided
December 8, 2005
Outcome
Affirmed
Holding
Property owners are not entitled to severance damages for loss of access or view when those damages result from construction activities on property not taken from the owner, rather than from the taking itself or construction on the severed property.
Standard of Review
Correctness for questions of law
Practice Tip
When seeking severance damages in condemnation cases, ensure that alleged damages flow directly from the taking of the property or construction on the severed parcel, not from other aspects of a broader construction project.
Need Appellate Counsel?
Lotus Appellate Law handles appeals before the Utah Court of Appeals, Utah Supreme Court, California Court of Appeal, and the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit.
Related Court Opinions
About these Decision Summaries
Lotus Appellate Law publishes these summaries to keep practitioners informed — not as legal advice. Each case turns on its own facts. If a decision here is relevant to your matter, we’re happy to discuss it.