In Hull v. Pleasant Hill School District, Jim and Nancy Hull won a $3 million jury verdict against a Missouri school district after construction on the district’s property flooded and destroyed their adjacent 46-acre golf course. The Missouri Court of Appeals for the Western District affirmed the verdict on June 6, 2017, and the Missouri Supreme Court denied the district’s petition for transfer on October 6, 2017, ending the case.1Justia. Hull v. Pleasant Hill School District2vLex. Hull v. Pleasant Hill Sch. Dist., 526 S.W.3d 278
What Caused the Flooding
The Hulls owned Pleasant Hill Golf Course in Cass County, Missouri, and lived on the property in the clubhouse. Their land sat next to Pleasant Hill High School. In 2007, the school district cleared and re-contoured a marshy, wooded area near the school to build practice fields. Stormwater and silt began pouring onto the golf course, overwhelming its drainage and damaging its infrastructure. In the years that followed, the district added more impervious surfaces and installed drainage pipes that emptied near the course, making the problem worse.
The Hulls tried for years to get the district to fix it. On October 16, 2013, the district sent a letter disclaiming any responsibility for the drainage. By then, the course could no longer be maintained or operated, and further repairs were considered futile.
The Inverse Condemnation Claim
In 2014, the Hulls sued under a theory of inverse condemnation, a claim available when a government entity effectively takes private property without going through formal eminent domain. Their argument was direct: the district had turned the golf course into part of its stormwater management system without paying for it.
The $3 Million Verdict and Property Transfer
After a four-day trial, the jury found that the district had “totally and permanently” taken the Hulls’ property as of October 16, 2013, and awarded $3 million in damages. The circuit court entered judgment in October 2015 and ordered the Hulls and their corporate entity, Pleasant Hill Golf, Inc., to transfer title to the property to the school district. The result was a forced exchange: the district got the land, the Hulls got its fair market value.
Why the District Lost on Appeal
The school district appealed on two grounds. It argued the Hulls lacked standing because their deed was not recorded until 2009, two years after the flooding began, making them “subsequent grantees” who could not claim damages for an earlier taking. It also argued the trial court should have given a partial-taking instruction rather than a total-and-permanent-taking instruction.
The Court of Appeals rejected both arguments. On standing, the court held that recording a deed is not what transfers ownership under Missouri law. The Hulls had purchased the property in 2005 and were operating it when the flooding started in 2007, and they were the people the district had actually dealt with about the drainage. That was enough. On the jury instruction, the court found the evidence supported the conclusion that the property had been rendered completely useless as a golf course, which justified the total-taking instruction and the fair market value measure of damages.3FindLaw. Jim Hull and Nancy Hull v. Pleasant Hill School District
What the Ruling Established
The case confirms a route for property owners harmed by neighboring government construction. When a public entity’s improvements redirect water onto private land and the damage becomes severe enough to destroy the property’s use, the owner can demand compensation as if the government had formally condemned the land. The standing ruling also matters on its own: in Missouri, actual ownership at the time of the harm controls, not the date a deed is recorded at the courthouse.