William B. Wood, et al.,

1
STATE OF MINNESOTA

IN SUPREME COURT

A22-0314

Court of Appeals Thissen, J.

William B. Wood, et al.,

Appellants,

vs. Filed: August 23, 2023
Office of Appellate Courts
County of Blue Earth,

Respondent.

________________________

Gary A. Van Cleve, Timothy A. Rye, Bryan J. Huntington, Larkin Hoffman Daly &
Lindgren Ltd., Minneapolis, Minnesota, for appellants.

Thomas J. Radio, Janell M. Gabor, Felhaber Larson, Minneapolis, Minnesota; and

Patrick R. McDermott, Blue Earth County Attorney, Mankato, Minnesota, for respondent.

Keith Ellison, Attorney General, Mathew Ferche, Assistant Attorney General, Saint Paul,
Minnesota, for amicus curiae State of Minnesota, Commissioner of Transportation.

Stuart T. Alger, Alger Property Law, P.L.L.C., Minneapolis, Minnesota;

Leland J. Frankman, Frankman Law Office, PLLC, Minneapolis, Minnesota; and

David L. Sienko, Levander, Gillen & Miller, P.A., Eagan, Minnesota, for amicus curiae
Minnesota Eminent Domain Institute.

________________________
2
S Y L L A B U S
An owner of property abutting a newly constructed controlled-access highway does
not have a property right of access that is compensable under Minnesota statutes in a
condemnation proceeding.
Affirmed.
O P I N I O N
THISSEN, Justice.
Appellants William B. Wood, Elise Wood, and Telemark Properties, LLC (the
Landowners) assert that they are entitled to compensation for the loss of a right to access
to a newly constructed controlled-access highway built across their property. We conclude
that the Landowners have no right of access to a newly constructed controlled-acces s
highway. Accordingly, respondent Blue Earth County (the County) does not owe just
compensation to the Landowners because no taking occurred.
FACTS
The Landowners own farmland in Blue Earth County. The Landowners’ property
consists of farmland that is located to the south and east of the Blue Earth County Justice
Center and abuts the Mankato city limits. In 2016, the County filed a quick-take petition
in district court to condemn a portion of the Landowners’ property to construct a new
section of County State Aid Highway No. 12 ( Highway 12). See Minn. Stat. § 117.042
(2022) (setting forth the procedure for granting a taking before compensation is
determined). No road previously existed where the new section of Highway 12 was
planned. The plat maps referenced in the petition showed that the new section of
3
Highway 12 crossing the Landowners’ property would be a “controlled access” highway.1
The County petition did not expressly state that the taking included the taking of the
Landowners’ right to access Highway 12.
The district court held a hearing on the quick-take petition. The district court
granted the petition and appointed commissioners to determine the compensation due to
the Landowners resulting from the taking. See Minn. Stat. § 117.075, subd. 2 (2022).
The hearing before the commissioners occurred in August 2020. Both parties
presented expert appraisals of the value of the property taken by the County. The
Landowners’ appraisal was higher because it included compensation for loss of access to
Highway 12. The County’s appraisal did not include any amount of damages for loss of
access to Highway 12. The commissioners awarded the Landowners compensation
consistent with the County’s appraiser. The damages award included compensation for
severance damages—the reduction in the value of the property because Highway 12 was
bisecting property that had not been separated before.
The Landowners appealed the award to district court. See Minn. Stat. § 117.175,
subd. 1 (2022). The parties submitted pretrial cross-motions in limine. The Landowners
sought to preclude the County from making any argument to the jury that the Landowners

1 See Blue Earth County Highway Right of Way plat maps [opinion attachments]. A
“controlled-access highway” is statutorily defined as “any highway, street, or road,
including streets within cities, over, from, or to which owners or occupants of abutting land
or other persons have or are to have no right of access, or only a controlled right of the
easement of access, light, air, or view.” Minn. Stat. § 160.02, subd. 12 (2022).
4
were not entitled to damages for loss of access to Highway 12 and from introducing any
evidence or argument that access could or would be provided in the future after the date of
the taking. The County sought to prohibit the Landowners from offering any evidence
about loss of access to Highway 12 . The County argued that loss of access was not an
element of just compensation in this case and could not be considered or awarded by the
jury.
The district court granted the County’s motion in limine and denied the
Landowners’ motion. The district court reasoned that because “the new [Highway 12] did
not previously exist,” the Woods had “not been deprived of any right of access for which
they should be justly compensated.” The district court also observed that the County
continued to provide farm access to the Landowners’ property.2

2 After the district court granted the motion in limine precluding the Landowners from
presenting evidence on their claim for compensation for loss of access, the Landowners
retained a new expert who prepared a valuation using the development cost approach. See
Hansen v. County of Hennepin, 527 N.W.2d 89, 93 (Minn. 1995) (“[T]he development cost
approach is a method of appraising property in which an appraiser attempts to determine
the current price a developer would pay for land, given the cost of development and the
probable proceeds from the sale of the developed property.”). The district court granted
the County’s motion in limine to preclude the Landowners from offering evidence based
upon the development cost approach. The record shows that the property was zoned for
agricultural use and that development of the property was not imminent. Subsequently,
the Landowners stipulated to a judgment in the amount awarded by the commissioners and
appealed the district court’s orders on the parties’ two motions in limine. The court of
appeals affirmed the district court’s decision to prohibit the Landowners from offering a
development cost approach valuation. We did not grant review of the court of appeals’
decision on that issue.
5
The Landowners appealed. The court of appeals concluded that the district court
did not abuse its discretion in granting the County’s motion in limine. Wood v. County of
Blue Earth, No. A22-0314, 2022 WL 17244786, at *3 (Minn. App. Nov. 28, 2022).
We granted review.
ANALYSIS
“[A] right of access is an independent property right which must be compensated
for if taken or impaired and . . . it may be taken separate and apart from the land to which
it is appurtenant.” State by Burnquist v. Miller Home Dev., Inc., 65 N.W.2d 900, 905
(Minn. 1954). The fundamental question we are asked to answer here—the statutory
question the parties are arguing about in this case—is whether a person who owns property
abutting a newly constructed controlled-access highway has a right of access to the
controlled-access highway. This is an issue of first impression before our court.
We conclude that no such right of access exists under Minnesota statute.
Consequently, we affirm the district court’s decision to preclude the Landowners from
offering evidence about the amount of compensation they are owed for their loss of access
to Highway 12.
The Landowners’ loss of access claim is based on its interpretation of Minnesota
statutes and, in particular, Minnesota Statutes chapter 160 (2022), governing roads. The
Landowners do not challenge the constitutionality of the statutes. We review questions of
statutory interpretation de novo. Buzzell v. Walz, 974 N.W.2d 256, 261 (Minn. 2022).
Minnesota Statutes section 160.02, subdivision 26, defines a “road or highway” to
“include[], unless otherwise specified, the several kinds of highways as defined in this
6
section, including roads designated as minimum-maintenance roads, and also cartways,
together with all bridges or other structures thereon which form a part of the same.”
Minn. Stat. § 160.02, subd. 26. Minnesota Statutes section 160.18, subdivision 2, sets out
the rule governing general access to roads and approaches:
Except when the easement of access has been acquired, the road authorities
in laying out and constructing a new highway or in relocating or
reconstructing an old highway shall construct suitable approaches thereto
within the limits of the right-of-way where the approaches are reasonably
necessary and practicable, so as to provide abutting owners a reasonable
means of access to such highway.

Minn. Stat. § 160.18, subd. 2. Under that section, then, the government generally must
provide to an abutting landowner a “reasonable means of access” to either a newly
constructed highway or a relocated or reconstructed highway. Id.
Minnesota Statutes section 160.02, subdivision 12, specifically defines a
particular class of highway—a controlled- access highway. The statute provides that a
controlled-access highway is “any highway, street, or road, including streets within cities,
over, from, or to which owners or occupants of abutting land or other persons have or are
to have no right of access, or only a controlled right of the easement of access, light, air, or
view.” Minn. Stat. § 160.02, subd. 12.
Minnesota Statutes section 160.08 sets forth the specific rules governing
controlled-access highways. First, section 160.08, subdivision 1, states that road
authorities “are authorized to plan for the designation, establishment, location, relocation,
improvement, and maintenance of controlled -access highways for public use” but only
when “the road authorities determine that traffic conditions, present or future, will justify”
7
designating the highway as a controlled-access highway. Minn. Stat. § 160.08, subd. 1;
see Note, Eminent Domain: Compensation for Partial Taking of Farm Land in
Constructing Limited-Access Highways, 42 Minn. L. R. 106, 106, 120 (1957) (stating that
controlled-access highways are designed for movement of through traffic and limiting a
right of access allows for public safety and public convenience). The County’s decision to
designate the portion of Highway 12 through the Landowners’ property as a
controlled-access highway is not at issue in this appeal.
Second, section 160.08, subdivision 3, provides that “road authorities are authorized
to so design any controlled-access highway, and to so regulate, restrict, or prohibit access
as to best serve the traffic for which the highway is intended,” and that “[n]o person shall
have any rights of ingr ess or egress to, from, or across controlled-access highways to or
from abutting lands, except at the designated points or roadways thereof where access is
permitted by such road authorities upon such terms and conditions as such road authorities
specify.” Minn. Stat. § 160.08, subd. 3. This provision reinforces what the Legislature
said in defining controlled-access highways and provides additional detail: abutting
landowners have no rights of ingress or egress to, from, or across controlled-access
highways except that the road authority, in its discretion, may provide such access. In
other words, unlike the general rule for highways and roads set forth in section 160.18,
subdivision 2, both section 160.02, subdivision 12, and section 160.08, subdivision 3, tell
us that abutting landowners have no right of access to a controlled-access highway.
Finally, section 160.08, subdivision 5, provides that road authorities may construct
new controlled-access highways or may convert an existing street or highway into a
8
controlled-access highway. Minn. Stat. § 160.08, subd. 5. Moreover, the Legislature
specified that “[i]n the case of any elimination of existing access, air, view, light, or other
compensable property rights, the owner shall be compensated for the loss by purchase or
condemnation.” Id. (emphasis added). Under section 160.18, subdivision 5, then, when a
road authority converts an existing highway to which an abutting property has access to a
controlled-access highway, the road authority must compensate the owner for loss of that
access. But when a road authority constructs a new controlled-access highway, it is not
eliminating an existing access and, under Minnesota statutes, no compensation is owed.
We reach the same conclusion as the district court: because “the new [Highway 12]
did not previously exist,” the Landowners have “not been deprived of any right of access
for which they should be justly compensated.”3
CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, we affirm the court of appeals.
Affirmed.

3 The parties dispute the legal implications in this case of expressions by the County
of a willingness to provide future access to Highway 12 from the Landowners’ property.
Based on our resolution of the case, we do not address those arguments. Cf. City of St.
Louis Park v. Almor Co., 313 N.W.2d 606 (Minn. 1981) (holding that a condemning
authority must pay damages to property owner for loss of access that existed at the time of
the taking and cannot mitigate those condemnation damages through promises of future
access). But nothing we say in this opinion should discourage condemning authorities
from clearly articulating whether they are limiting or restricting access rights or from
seeking to amicably resolve with property owners these often complex issues through
negotiation and broader discussion.
BLUE EARTH COUNTY HIGHWAY RIGHT OF WAY PLAT NO. 33 REVISED
e INDICATES fQUNO MONUMENT (SEE COORDINATE
LIST FOR OESCRIPOION or MONUMENT)
IN0ICATESARC0ISTANCE
IN0ICATESCENTRA,_ANGLE
R IN0ICATESR.601\JSl.fNGTH
ec
PT
" CL=
589 AVENUE (C.S.A.H.
EXTERIOR SECTION LINES
CENTER LINE OF SECTION LINES
1/4SECTIONLINES
[XISTINGPA.RCELLINE S
EXISTING R/W LINE
NO. 12) I
ii::I
~,--------
ir,"'
i
i
I•
a ~!~~<~ lg I • I
L ,- · - ·- --- '!~}~ .1!....:.,l;i
--- --- --- ~CEL 2-8 --- :---
I
I
I
I
· I
i : •- - -•-·• -•••·•·••-'-" -M •-•-•-•§~. ,_. _1!_~• •0 :..J:JJ.:Y_ -
L,_ - - _ , _NOD'l~<.i 'W- ~O'J -,_, _, _ _ ~t c.=,><.:.: .z,c,.,.,._ ·=
e1 II kno-, Ol'I t nh L My of ~ ~~~:1"\n., 81u, Eo,th Coo,nty Oo<,r,1 o f t..-,ul~ners ore hueoy des,i no\Jnq
th\deflnlte l':'co\Jon "1 o,.,,.o l l':''"'"'J 0r l<_1h l o \.., ys Sl$89 Av;"u\(Cour,\y S\Ol\A l dCHl ghwoyto c1~)/rorn t ne sti·p
108 North Ron,;ie 26 W.•t t o Its Inter section • ll h ttu, southerly •l9t> t or '"<I)' l ine or Moouo n Avenue ( Count y Slo l e
.O. Jd Hlqhway ttQ. 17). ,:cc<>rdinq lo Blu• Eorth County HJ9h-oy Rl91'1l Of Woy Plot r.t> • .JO, <>n fil• ond of record ,-ilh
~:::::,,7e2u::-• "· 0, ) ooo ;adom S0< «~:w?.i1-.i~;•yv\•~'" ''"'° ,s ""
111<> \PO'tl°" of S89R.o..em,e {County .S to l e .0.iO IHqh..ay
0
No.f 12)
1
and
0
1ioff...,n
1
Rooa
0
ln.,Se ct!o~•HH,,.15,
0
and ,2 2 of I•
her 1by/ ertlfhd/O be/ he/ff l cl a \/'°\"\tl1ot/ortlon 5o r /a\.o.onu,e(CO<JQ_t~/ ta to .0. (d Hi<;1h• <>y No. 12) ond
Doto: Jt.,e.ne ..1. "WICo
lhhereB cerl!fy elhot
0
th :s_pl o\ 0"" • /'"P°'"d /1 c.e o.- unde'. "'Y /l rtc \supervl1i o,, / "a/•o o / "" "ct,re pru entotlon 0
of /oid /""'J; 1
111l nul e& and ncood1 : lhal th o ..,nu .-..nls to de l in e at e lhls &ur ,e y h• • • bu n pla ced Jn \ ht gr ()IJnd •• s hown on th e plot: and th e ri; ht
of ,..gy boundary lino oro co,roclly des ignot od on \hi , plot
'"""·' ,_ li::.~,.v:,,~ ""'" ,._ , -17•! 0o ,. ""'· 51 ,,_.,,r,,
'.uo ~,:~~~fy J:_ '.h~, 1 :~ ~•~:~1 1 ~:o:i~~,'~.:~~:~r~~•~~~~~ a,a;.;.1 C "g-1,,"}'PI~, l~016. ot
eWt'n~R~ 'QINj&bJ ½~a-: -~~
(WKSOI"~ COUfN COORDlll,O,T[ STSl( M -
Bl.l,E[Aln'HCOUflTYlON[-~ -1996}
N.l/< COR. - SCC.21-IOll-16/IRONPIP(ilON,l,OIT
E.1/<COR.-SCC.ZZ·\Oll~/ll!ONPIPE-..oll
E.1~:COR.-SCC. 21·11la-16 ~SIOIC YONM:NT HT
H.E. COR. · SK U-JOll·24/lft011PlKlll)!t.ll(NI
11.1/< COR. - S[C. U-IOl!,·16/(R(lliP!P(-..;lll(INJOIIIOWl'I. Al07 ~1j
K.E. COR. - SCC. ZHOl!,•M/SlO!CIICJUlNT
t 1~: ~= s~ :r:::: ~;~a:=: 1=~ = ~: ~ ~~:::i
H. 1/ < CQlll.-:.fC. ll· 106·~/fl!OIIP(P('°"-"'E II!
N. £. COR. - '>1:C. l~-1°'5-lll I !l<CJII PIPE IICfUOI!
H. t/ :(l'I - S(C. 1~- \08 ·1~ / P. ~ N.o.tL (M!OOT NOW ~n 01-67)
SHEET 1 OF 3 SHEETS
BLUE EARTH COUNTY HIGHWAY RIGHT OF WAY PLAT NO.
PC
PT
" CC•
INDICATES FOUND MONUMENT (SEE: COORDINATE
LIST FOR DESCRIPTION OF MONUMENT)
INOICATESARC 0ISTANC[
INDICA!ES C[:t-lTRA:._ANGLE
IN0ICAT[S RA0IUSLENGT'i
I A II.IE ( A~lllCOUITl
589 AVENUE (C.S.A.H.
EXTERIOR SECTION LINES
CENTER LINE OF SECTION LINES
--- - 1/4 S[C TION LIN[S
D,'.ISTING PARCEL UNES
EXISTING R/W LINE
NEW PARCEL LINES
- · -• - •-• - ·-•-•- · - CONTROLLED ACCESS
l.72
...
0. 16 I
NO. 12)
33 REVISED
~
- ·,•:,.·.'.,.::;- =---t---
+
I
SHEET 2 OF 3 SHEETS
BLUE EARTH
,NOICAITS FOUND ~ONUM[ NT (SEE COORDINATE
U STFORDESC R;PTION OF' MONUI.IENT)
INDICATES
INDICATES
PC INDICATES POINT Of CURVATURE
FT INDICATES POINT Of TANGENCY
INDICATES POINT Qt INTERSECTION
CL= INOICATES CEfH ER Ut,,[ Qlt,l[NSION
... •• ;;.• 'o.,,.
~, "• .. ; ........
, i PARCEL 12-A
~l.-.-----·,i,T,i,,..=-.. ,,
COUNTY HIGHWAY RIGHT
589 AVENUE (C.S.A.H.
E;XT[RIORSE CTION LINES
C[NTERLINEO fSECT IQN LIN[S
- - - - 1/4- SECTIONLIN[S
[)OS TING PARCEL LINES
EXISTING R/W LINE
N£W PARCf:L LINES
-•-• - • -•-·-·-·- • - CONTROLUD ACCESS
1'.'
OF WAY PLAT NO. 33 REVISED
NO. 12)
JOO
I