id	author	title	date	pages	extension	mime	words	sentence	flesch	summary	cache	txt
inlawrev-27130	Crist, Brian C.; Bazakos, Maria M.; Hardcastle, Tyler J.; Hyvarinen, Ida M.; Land, Matthew R.; Laughlin, Ashley L.; Marschke, Katie J.; Morton, Amanda C.; Norlander, Alex; Pegues, JonTia A.; Ragias, Marie; Soshnick, Haley L.; Tirman, Michael R.; Xie, Annie R.	Survey on Recently Reported Cases in Real Property Law	2023	39	.pdf	application/pdf	17314	1000	66	[Vol. 55:611 trial court also ordered the Steeles to pay the District's back user fees and penalties, back partial rate and penalties, capacity fees, failure-to-connect penalties, and a contractor reimbursement fee.110 The Steeles appealed and argued that the trial court erred, arguing that the District may not punish a property owner, who refused to voluntarily grant an easement, by requiring them to complete and pay for the connection themselves, while property owners who grant an easement have the connection complete at no cost to them.1 1 1 The Court of Appeals held that the District may charge the Steeles for the cost of installation, but may not charge the Steeles for the equipment.112 The Court of Appeals determined that “it was improper for the District to 'incentivize' [the property owner] ‘to voluntarily give up their property by assessing two difference connection charges’” based on the property owners willingness to voluntary convey an easement or not.113 The Court of Appeals stated that the District could have obtained an easement through eminent-domain, but it did not choose to do so, thus because the District did not have a right to enter the Property, it was logical to require the Steeles to do such work at their own expense.114 Despite this, it was not appropriate for the District to charge the Steeles for equipment that property owners who granted the easement voluntarily received for free because the District can provide the equipment without entering the Steeles property, and the ability to enter the Property did not change the cost of the equipment.115 The Court of Appeals emphasized that this was required under Tucker and consistent with a recent holding of a similar case.116 The Court of Appeals affirmed the part of the trial court's order requiring the Steeles to pay for the installation of the system, but reversed the part requiring the Steeles to pay for the equipment.117 IV.	cache/inlawrev-27130.pdf	txt/inlawrev-27130.txt