Property owner sued city and city officials, alleging claims of trespass, continuing nuisance, inverse condemnation, and for attorney fees relating to ongoing water runoff from city property.
The trial court denied the city’s motion to dismiss, but granted certificate of immediate review. City appealed.
The Court of Appeals held that owners’ notice to city stating that runoff had resulted in continuing and ongoing damages to owners’ property in the amount of $1.5 million “to date” did not sufficiently notify city of specific amount of damages that owners sought as an offer of compromise.
Property owners’ ante litem notice to city stating that water runoff allowed by city had resulted in continuing and ongoing damages to owners’ property in the amount of $1.5 million “to date” did not sufficiently notify city of specific amount of damages that owners sought as an offer of compromise, as would have been required to satisfy ante litem notice statute in action for trespass, continuing nuisance, and inverse condemnation; owners’ notice advised that water runoff issue was continuous and ongoing, making it clear that damages incurred from such runoff were continuing, and notice did not state that owners sought only $1.5 million from city.