Burks v. Miss. Transp. Comm'n
| Docket Number: | 2006-SA-01354-COA Linked Case(s): 2006-SA-01354-COA2006-CT-01354-SCT |
|
| Oral Argument: | 09-25-2007 | |
* This video is best viewed in the most current version of Google Chrome, Internet Explorer with Windows Media Player plug-in, or Safari (Mac Users). |
||
| Court of Appeals: |
Opinion Link Opinion Date: 01-08-2008 Opinion Author: CARLTON, J. Holding: Reversed and Remanded |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Eminent domain - Fair market value of property - Comparable sales Judge(s) Concurring: KING, C.J., LEE AND MYERS, P.JJ., IRVING, CHANDLER, GRIFFIS, BARNES, ISHEE AND ROBERTS, JJ. Procedural History: Jury Trial Nature of the Case: CIVIL - EMINENT DOMAIN |
|
| Trial Court: |
Date of Trial Judgment: 05-22-2006 Appealed from: WINSTON COUNTY SPECIAL COURT OF EMINENT DOMAIN Judge: Joseph H. Loper Disposition: FINAL JUDGMENT ON VERDICT ENTERED AWARDING BURKS $132,500. The property was condemned and Burks was awarded $132,500 as due compensation. Case Number: 2000-13-CVL |
|
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | |||
| Appellant: | BONNIE CARTER BURKS |
JOHN G. CORLEW,
KATHERINE A. SMITH,
MEGAN MARTHINE BARBER CONNER |
||
| Appellee: | MISSISSIPPI TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION | JAMES T. METZ JOSHUA DANIEL FREEMAN |
|
|
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 - Fair market value of property - Comparable sales |
| Summary of the Facts: | The Mississippi Transportation Commission filed a complaint to condemn 1.24 acres of land owned by Bonnie Burks in order to widen Highway 25. At the conclusion of the trial, Burks was awarded $132,500 as due compensation. Burks appeals. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | Burks argues that the Commission did not present competent evidence of fair market value of her property, because the Commission’s appraiser valued her property using comparable sales which were not, in fact, comparable to her property and incorrectly mixed the cost approach with the sales comparison approach. Fair market value is established by careful consideration of not just one but three separate and distinct approaches to value; the income approach, the cost approach and the market data or sales comparison approach. There is no merit in Burks’ argument that the expert impermissibly mixed the two approaches. While the approaches are referred to as “separate and distinct,” they are also described as “interrelated.” Further, according to established appraisal principles and guidelines, the application of the cost approach necessarily requires the utilization of the sales comparison approach. Burkes also argues that the comparable sales used by the expert were not comparable to her property. To be comparable to the subject land, a sale must relate to and possess similar qualities to the land involved in the sale. Prior to the taking, Burks had operated a grocery store on her property for fourteen years. Thus, her property possessed an income-producing capacity by virtue of its highway frontage. This fact was acknowledged by the expert when he opined that the highest and best use of Burks’ property before the taking was highway commercial and residential. Yet, in estimating the value of Burks’ land, he used four sales of land not located on a highway, which did not reflect the commercial value inherent in a property with highway frontage. Therefore, his estimate of fair market value was not supported by competent evidence. Additionally, the inadequacy of the expert’s appraisal is exacerbated by his failure to use more than one approach in reaching his estimate of value, and more specifically, his failure to use the income approach, which is highly relevant where commercial property is at issue. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
