Can condemnors mitigate eminent domain damages through reserved highway access? UDOT v. TBT Property Management, Inc. Explained

In eminent domain proceedings, condemnors often seek to reduce their liability by mitigating damages to remaining property. The Utah Court of Appeals addressed whether a reserved right of access through a limited-access highway constitutes adequate mitigation in UDOT v. TBT Property Management, Inc.

Background and Facts

UDOT condemned approximately ten acres of TBT’s property in Lehi for the Pioneer Crossing Highway. The original condemnation eliminated TBT’s access to public roads, creating significant severance damages to the remainder property. Before trial, UDOT sought to amend its complaint to reflect a modified condemnation resolution that “excepted and reserved” to TBT a 66-foot right of access to the highway. TBT objected, arguing this reservation did not constitute actual access or meaningful mitigation.

Key Legal Issues

The central question was whether UDOT’s reservation of a right to access the highway through a break in the limited-access line constituted legally sufficient mitigation of damages under Utah Code section 78B-6-512(1). TBT argued the mere designation of access rights without actual roadway construction was legally insufficient as a matter of law.

Court’s Analysis and Holding

The court of appeals affirmed the trial court’s rulings across multiple challenges. The court found TBT failed to provide legal authority supporting its position that the reserved access right was categorically insufficient. Under Utah’s eminent domain statutes, condemnors may mitigate damages after service of summons, and the trial court properly determined there was sufficient evidence to allow the jury to assess the value of UDOT’s mitigation efforts. The court also upheld restrictions on cross-examination regarding pre-condemnation appraisals under section 78B-6-510 and approved the jury view of the complex property.

Practice Implications

This decision demonstrates that appellate courts will defer to trial courts’ assessments of mitigation adequacy when supported by evidence. Practitioners challenging mitigation measures must provide specific legal standards and authorities rather than conclusory arguments. The ruling also reinforces that statutory restrictions on immediate occupancy appraisals will be strictly enforced to prevent circumvention through creative cross-examination approaches.