Somerville v. Division of Highways
Opinion of the Court
From the evidence adduced at the hearing on October 8, 1992, it appears that the claimant purchased this property twenty years ago and now wishes to build a house on this property, but these is a ditch which was placed by respondent for the purpose of draining water from a highway owned by respondent. He claims that there was an agreement with the previous owner that respondent would maintain this ditch.
The claimant testified that he purchased the property on August 17, 1972; that the prior owner had given a right of way to the State for the purpose of digging such a drainage ditch on the superintendent who had agreed on behalf of the respondent to maintain the ditch. The ditch is 280 feet long. Claimant also testified that he would like for the respondent to pay the cost of cleaning the ditch out to prepare it for bulldozing, and the cost of bulldozing the ditch to place three more tile so that he may have a way to drive into and around his property.
The Court finds, as a matter of fact, that the claimant does not have a remedy in this forum; that if the respondent has taken his property without just compensation, claimant may wish to pursue a remedy in the circuit court, seeking to compel the State to institute a condemnation action against the property; and further, that claimant has not established that the respondent has a duty to maintain the ditch which is located on his property.
As this Court lacks jurisdiction over the subject matter of this claim, the Court must deny the claim.
Claim disallowed.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.