Hadley Township Case Heads to Missouri Supreme Court

A court case involving property located in the Hadley Township redevelopment area is headed to the Missouri Supreme Court, a decision filed Tuesday and made available on the website Leagle.com states.

The Court of Appeals of Missouri's Eastern District ruled that the high court has exclusive appellate jurisdiction in the case.

The City of Richmond Heights is questioning the constitutionality of two Missouri Revised Statutes sections that allow people to be compensated above assessed damages when a government body takes their property. The city argues that the term "just compensation," as described in state law, refers only to the property's fair market value, the decision states.

The case follows a trial court's decision to award $75,000 and prejudgment interest to property owner Lillian Gasway after the City of Richmond Heights obtained a condemnation order for her property, 1517 Banneker Rd., the decision states. The city wanted the property as part of its Hadley Township redevelopment plan. The court's award would have been in addition to a jury's $300,000 award for assessed damages.

"Specifically, the City contends that adding 25% to the jury award, pursuant to these two statutory sections, for homestead value, violates Article I, section 26 of the Missouri Constitution, in that such an enhanced award exceeds 'just compensation' for the property," the decision states.

In response to the trial court's ruling, the City of Richmond Heights filed a motion for a new trial, the documents state. The court, in turn, denied the motion, "implicitly ruling that the statutes were constitutional."

City Attorney Kenneth Heinz said Wednesday that the Gasway case is the last of a handful involving condemnation actions and the Hadley Township redevelopment area. All of the others have been settled. The house still lies within the Hadley Township redevelopment area, which the city recently shrank in an effort to attract developers.

"We were very pleased with the transfer to the Supreme Court," Heinz said. "The court of appeals indicated that we have a real, substantial issue regarding the constitutionality of the 2006 change to the law that added 25 percent to the fair market value. We're glad that the Supreme Court will be the one to decide it"

Heinz said the city doesn't have a problem paying prejudgment interest on the $300,000 jury award, nor does it deny that Gasway would be entitled to relocation benefits were the city to pursue her property.

But he said the total trial court judgment—identified in the court filing as $413,519.92—would be cost-prohibitive for the city.

"We just don't think that the taxpayers should have to bear that burden," Heinz said. The city will wait until the high court makes a ruling to determine whether to pursue condemnation of the property, he said. Factors affecting the city's decision will include the cost of the damages, the economy, retail markets, the property's location and whether anyone is interested in developing it.

The property holds no particular strategic values at this time, he said. The city is just determining price at this point.

He said the high court could uphold the trial court's 25-percent addition, reject it or send the case back for a retrial.

Steve Spoeneman, who represents Gasway, said the condemnation order on his client's house was filed in March 2008.

"It's my hope that the statute as drafted by the legislature will be upheld," Spoeneman said. He said he hopes the matter will then be returned to the appellate court to affirm the judgment in full.

"This is a marvelous-looking house," Spoeneman said. "It's just beautiful and well maintained."

He said the case is one that involves a city trying to correct a neighborhood by harming good properties along with bad ones. He said his client is optimistic but probably really frustrated.

"I think she's optimistic that the system will work well," Spoeneman said.