Miss. Transp. Comm'n v. Buchanan
| Docket Number: | 2010-CC-01588-COA Linked Case(s): 2010-CC-01588-COA ; 2010-CT-01588-SCT |
|
| Court of Appeals: |
Opinion Link Opinion Date: 04-10-2012 Opinion Author: Griffis, P.J. Holding: Affirmed |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Eminent domain - Expert testimony - M.R.E. 702 - Landowners’ opinions - Post-trial motions Judge(s) Concurring: Lee, C.J., Irving, P.J., Barnes, Ishee, Roberts, Carlton, Maxwell, Russell and Fair, JJ. Procedural History: Bench Trial Nature of the Case: CIVIL - EMINENT DOMAIN |
|
| Trial Court: |
Date of Trial Judgment: 09-20-2010 Appealed from: Pontotoc County Special Court of Eminent Domain Judge: James L. Roberts Disposition: JURY VERDICT OF $317,675 FOR THE APPELLEE Case Number: CV-05-223JR(PO) |
|
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | Brief(s) Available: | ||
| Appellant: | Mississippi Transportation Commission |
LAWRENCE LEE LITTLE
TARA BETH SCRUGGS |
|
|
| Appellee: | Reena Kay Helms Buchanan | DUNCAN L. LOTT | ||
Synopsis provided by:  If you are interested in subscribing to the weekly synopses of all Mississippi Supreme Court and Court of Appeals hand downs please contact Tammy Upton in the MLI Press office. |
|
| Topic: | Eminent domain - Expert testimony - M.R.E. 702 - Landowners’ opinions - Post-trial motions |
| Summary of the Facts: | The Mississippi Transportation Commission filed a complaint to acquire 18.907 acres owned by Reena Buchanan. The property to be taken included parcel one, consisting of 9.293 acres north of the new road and parcel two, consisting of 9.089 acres south of the new road, for a total of 18.907 acres. These parcels were part of 121.827 acres of undeveloped land owned by Buchanan. The court appointed Chris Rogers of Tupelo as the independent appraiser. Rogers entered an appraisal for the just compensation for the taking to be $204,000, using the before-and-after-value rule. Following statutory requirements, MTC deposited eighty five percent of the $204,000 plus $1,000 for the appraiser’s fee, totaling $174,400, into the registry of the circuit court. In turn, MTC received the right of immediate entry. In December 2005, Buchanan received the “quick take” proceeds with a trial to be held to determine what additional money she should receive for the taking of her land. The lawsuit did not move forward until 2008. In 2008, MTC filed a statement of value saying that the taken land had a fair-market value of $83,775 and had suffered $1,475 in damages for a total compensation due Buchanan of $85,250. Buchanan filed her statement of value stating that just compensation was $317,675, determined by a “before” value of $728,730 and “after” value of $411,055. MTC filed a corrected statement of values stating the same total value for the land of $85,250, but adding that damage included the reduction in value of two uneconomic remnants of land. The jury returned a verdict in favor of Buchanan in the amount of $317,675. The trial judge entered a judgment based on the jury’s verdict. In the judgment, the trial court ordered MTC to deposit $144,275 in the registry of the court to satisfy the judgment as MTC had previously paid $173,644. In return, MTC was vested with ownership of the 18.907 acres to be used in the highway construction. MTC appeals. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | Issue 1: Admission of testimony MTC argues that the testimony of Buchanan’s expert, Neelly, should have been excluded because he did not use comparable sales to justify his valuation of the Buchanan property. MTC also argues that Neelly improperly averaged the values of both residential and agricultural property to arrive at the per-acre value he assigned to the entire tract. Pursuant to M.R.E. 702, an expert’s testimony must be based upon sufficient facts or data, the testimony must be the product of reliable principles and methods; and the witness should apply the principles and methods reliably to the facts of the case. Expert opinions can vary widely in condemnation cases, and the disparity in the experts’ valuations alone is not indicative of bias, passion and prejudice. Here, both experts were subject to direct and cross-examination with rebuttal testimony in the presence of the jury. More importantly, the jury viewed the property and drew their own conclusions. The jury gave more credibility to Buchanan’s expert, and there is no reason to disturb that finding. Issue 2: Landowners’ opinions MTC argues that Buchanan and Helms were permitted to testify about “legally irrelevant offers of purchase and sales of properties totally unrelated to the type of the subject property.” It is settled that a landowner in an eminent-domain case may give his or her opinion of the fair-market value of his or her property. The landowner is exempt from showing that he possesses the qualifications necessary in law to be accepted as an expert witness under Rule 702. As Buchanan points out in her brief, Helms had owned the property for more than forty years, and he personally dug the drainage ditches in 1970 and 1978 that run through the property to drain it in order for home construction. Thus, Helms’s testimony was not just based upon offers or options of purchase he received for the property. Instead, Helms testified that his opinion was based upon what several neighbors paid for their lots. As for Buchanan, she lived her first eighteen years near the land and moved back to Pontotoc County in 1984. She testified that she and her father had discussed that the land would best be used for home sites. Her testimony about the value of the land that was based upon an offer to purchase the property should not have been allowed. However, the jury did not accept the $10,000-per-acre valuation Buchanan assigned to the land, but instead accepted the $6,000-per-acre value Buchanan’s expert gave. Thus, there is no merit to this issue. Issue 3: Post-trial motions MTC simply restates the arguments made previously. MTC’s brief does not present a factual or legal basis for its argument. Since the previous issues are without merit, there is no other reason to grant the relief requested under this issue. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
