Case Summaries 
of Importance to Counties

2012 Inverse Condemnation

  • Loveday v. Blount County, 37 TAM 35-14—Property owner sued the county for inverse condemnation, nuisance and negligence relating to property damage allegedly caused by the county’s construction of a new school.  The trial court dismissed the suit finding that the claim for inverse condemnation was beyond the statute of limitations and that once the facts showed a taking had occurred the plaintiff was barred from recovering under the theories of temporary nuisance or negligence.  The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s decision.  According to the Court, if the injury is permanent in nature, a taking has occurred and the statute of limitations starts to run once the owner is “charged with knowledge that the injury to his property [is] permanent.”  Furthermore, according to the Court, even if there is additional damage later on, the statute of limitations begins to run when the injured party knows the nature of the injury rather than when he or she knows the full extent of the injury.  Thus, the inverse condemnation claim is time barred and the other claims are precluded because the facts showed the injury was permanent in nature (July 24, 2012).
Return to all Case Summaries Relating to Inverse Condemnation