A federal judge from the Eastern District of Missouri has granted summary judgement to a school district that was sued by a property owner, who lived next to the school’s district’s baseball field and complained about players and parents trespassing on his property.
The defendant Rockwood School District operates several sports fields at its Rockwood Summit High School campus in Fenton, Missouri. At issue in the instant case is a baseball field (field) in the southwest corner of the campus, which abuts the plaintiff’s property. Specifically, the plaintiff’s front yard runs parallel to the field’s third baseline. A lightly wooded portion of the yard runs along the shared boundary of the properties.
Prior to 2017, an eight-foot fence (field fence) surrounded the field, and an additional six-foot fence (perimeter fence) ran along the property between the wooded area and the west side of the field. Because the perimeter fence did not tie-in to the field fence, spectators and players were able to enter the property to retrieve foul balls. The field also had a 12- to 15-foot backstop between home plate and the spectator area.
The defendant began renovations to the field in 2017. The plaintiff’s parents, Jane and Harold Petry, owned the property at that time. Christopher Freund, Director of Facilities for the Rockwood School District, met with the plaintiff’s parents in 2017 and agreed to make certain improvements to address their concerns about trespassing. As part of these improvements, the defendant extended the perimeter fence and connected it to the field fence to prevent patrons from entering the property. The defendant also installed a 20-foot backstop between home plate and the bleachers. Beyond that, the defendant planted new shrubs to reinforce the wood line along the plaintiff’s property and installed netting along the south dugout. The defendant also erected “no trespassing” signs and added locks the gates around the field.
The plaintiff began living at the property in January of 2018. She purchased the property from her parents in June of the same year. The plaintiff was aware of the field before moving to the property. Even so, the plaintiff asserted that the defendant’s usage of the field “has become so frequent and available to the public for multiple uses, including a dog park, that is has constituted . . . a grossly unreasonable use of [district] property in a manner that causes severe detriments to Plaintiff [and] the fair market value of the Property[.]”
The plaintiff also alleged that the defendant has deprived her of her right to quiet enjoyment. Specifically, she complained of litter, “loud, boisterous crowds,” harassment by patrons, and baseballs that “rain down” on the property.
The plaintiff alleged causes of action for inverse condemnation and a taking under the Fifth Amendment. She sought monetary damages, attorney’s fees, and injunctive relief. The defendant moved for summary judgment.
In its discussion, the court noted that the plaintiff appears to assert that the defendant’s usage of the field, “constitutes a direct physical taking in the form of errant baseballs, trespassers, and loud sounds.”
The court continued, noting that the plaintiff, “offers no support for the idea that even the frequent presence of baseballs, trespassers, and sounds constitutes true possession or occupation in the traditional sense. At this stage, it is not enough to rely upon allegations and denials. Carter, 956 F.3d at 1059. Plaintiff must instead bring forth sufficient probative evidence that would permit a finding in her favor beyond mere conjecture or speculation. Id. Plaintiff has not done so. Thus, the Court will grant Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment to the extent Plaintiff’s Complaint can be understood to assert a claim of physical possession or occupation of her Property.”
The court added that the “Complaint is better understood to assert a regulatory taking.” But even here, the plaintiff falls short, according to the court, which relied on Murr v. Wisconsin, 582 U.S. 383, 393, 137 S. Ct. 1933, 198 L. Ed. 2d 497 (2017).
“The Supreme Court has offered two guiding principles for determining when regulation is so onerous that is constitutes a taking. Id. First, ‘with certain qualifications . . . a regulation which denies all economically beneficial or productive use of law will require compensation under the Takings Clause.’ Id. (quoting Palazzo, 533 U.S. at 617) (cleaned up). Second, where a regulation does not deprive the owner of all economically beneficial use, ‘a taking still may be found based on a complex of factors, including (1) the economic impact of the regulation on the claimant; (2) the extent to which the regulation has interfered with distinct investment-backed expectations; and (3) the character of the governmental action.’ Id. (citing Palazzo, 533 U.S. at 617) (cleaned up).
“Plaintiff does not contend that Defendant’s use of the field has denied her of all economically beneficial or productive use of the Property. Thus, the Court must consider the ‘complex of factors’ outlined in Palazzo. 533 U.S. at 617.
“Plaintiff acknowledges that the value of the Property has increased since she purchased it in June 2018. But Plaintiff asserts that Defendant’s ‘unreasonable uses’ of the field have nevertheless substantially impaired her use and quiet enjoyment of the Property. Plaintiff offers no evidence of any negative economic impact or interference with her investment-backed expectations. Indeed, when asked via interrogatory to describe any physical damage to Plaintiff’s property, Plaintiff offered a boilerplate objection followed by a single responsive sentence: ‘Plaintiff’s landscaping has frequently been damaged by foul balls struck into her yard.’
“Plaintiff also fails to establish the third factor. Beyond the occasional use of terms like ‘careless’ and ‘unreasonable,’ Plaintiff makes little effort to explain why the character of Defendant’s action supports a finding in her favor, especially absent any evidence relating to the first two factors. Unsupported allegations of this sort are not enough at this stage. See Carter, 956 F.3d at 1059. All three factors weigh in Defendant’s favor. The Court will grant Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment on Plaintiff’s takings claim.”
The court continued, “even viewing the facts in the light most favorable to Plaintiff, there is no basis for this Court to conclude that Defendant’s use of the field is unreasonable. Plaintiff cites no authority to show that the alleged nuisances are anything more than the foreseeable consequences of living next to a baseball field.
“It is undisputed that an eight-foot fence surrounds the field and that an additional six-foot fence runs along Plaintiff’s property. It is also undisputed that Defendant has erected a 20-foot backstop and ‘no trespassing’ signs. And while the parties dispute the density of the foliage running between Plaintiff’s yard and the field, it is undisputed that the narrow-wooded area provides at least some protection from foul balls.
“Reasonability aside, Plaintiff cannot establish damages. Where a public entity only temporarily damages the property rights of a property owner, the proper measure of damages is the diminution in value of the use of occupancy of the property. Byrom v. Little Blue Valley Sewer Dist., 16 S.W.3d 573, 577 (Mo. banc 2000) (citation omitted). Plaintiff concedes that her property value has increased since she purchased the property in 2018. For these reasons, the Court will grant Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment on Plaintiff’s inverse-condemnation claim.”
Teresa Petry v. Rockwood School District; E.D. Mo.; No. 4:22-CV-796 RLW; 12/20/23
