Gautier v. Miss. Transp. Comm'n


<- Return to Search Results


Docket Number: 2001-CA-01795-COA

Court of Appeals: Opinion Link
Opinion Date: 03-11-2003
Opinion Author: Lee, J.
Holding: Affirmed

Additional Case Information: Topic: Eminent domain - Valuation of property - Additur - Section 11-1-55 - Interest
Judge(s) Concurring: McMillin, C.J., King and Southwick, P.JJ., Bridges, Thomas, Irving, Myers, Chandler and Griffis, JJ.
Procedural History: Jury Trial
Nature of the Case: CIVIL - EMINENT DOMAIN

Trial Court: Date of Trial Judgment: 09-18-2001
Appealed from: Jackson County Special Court of Eminent Domain
Judge: T. Larry Wilson
Disposition: APPELLANTS AWARDED $831,100 FOR CONDEMNED PROPERTY; TITLE TO PROPERTY CONFIRMED IN APPELLEE AND APPELLEE ORDERED TO PAY COSTS OF COURT.
Case Number: 98-0270

  Party Name: Attorney Name:  
Appellant: David C. Gautier, Lawrence L. Gautier, Walter Warren Gautier and Andre A. Gautier




VINCENT J. CASTIGLIOLA



 

Appellee: Mississippi Transportation Commission DONALD E. HINTON JACK HOMER PITTMAN  

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 - Valuation of property - Additur - Section 11-1-55 - Interest

Summary of the Facts: The Mississippi Transportation Commission instituted an eminent domain action against the Gautiers to have a restaurant and docks owned by the Gautiers condemned, since they were in the path of a soon-to-be built bridge spanning the Pascagoula River. A trial was held to determine the proper amount due the Gautiers, and a jury returned a verdict in favor of MTC in the amount of $831,000. The Gautiers appeal.

Summary of Opinion Analysis: Issue 1: Valuation of property The Gautiers argue the award of compensation was not commensurate with the evidence presented, because MTC's expert failed to make adjustments to account for workers' compensation insurance and for engineering costs in arriving at his estimate. When a jury award is between the values offered by the experts, the award cannot be said to have been influenced by bias, passion or prejudice. In this case, three experts testified, two for MTC and one for the Gautiers. The amount awarded by the jury was between those values offered by all three experts and cannot therefore be said to have been influenced by bias, passion or prejudice. Issue 2: Additur The Gautiers argue that the judge erred in denying their motion for additur or new trial. Section 11-1-55 allows the court to order an additur if the court finds that the damages are inadequate for the reason that the jury was influenced by bias, prejudice, or passion, or that the damages awarded were contrary to the overwhelming weight of credible evidence. The evidence included videotapes and photographs of the property, plus testimony from three different experts. Taken together, these all provided substantial evidence to support the award. Issue 3: Interest The Gautiers argue that because MTC erred in failing to notify them of funds deposited, they are entitled to interest from the date of deposit. Once funds are deposited, the clerk acquires control of the funds and the commission is not responsible for interest from the point of deposit to the time the landowner withdraws the funds.


Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court