Trowbridge Partners, L.P., et al. v. Miss. Transporation Comm'n.
| Docket Number: | 2005-CA-02167-SCT Linked Case(s): 2005-CA-02167-SCT |
|
| Supreme Court: | Opinion Link Opinion Date: 03-22-2007 Opinion Author: SMITH, C.J. Holding: Affirmed |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Eminent domain - Expert testimony - Comparable sales - Deductions from compensation - Zoning classifications Judge(s) Concurring: WALLER, P.J., EASLEY, CARLSON, DICKINSON AND RANDOLPH, JJ. Non Participating Judge(s): COBB, P.J., AND GRAVES, J. Concurs in Result Only: DIAZ, J. Procedural History: Jury Trial Nature of the Case: CIVIL - EMINENT DOMAIN |
|
| Trial Court: |
Date of Trial Judgment: 09-07-2005 Appealed from: MADISON COUNTY SPECIAL COURT OF EMINENT DOMAIN EMINENT DOMAIN Judge: WILLIAM STRATTON AGIN Disposition: Jury returned a verdict establishing just compensation. From this verdict the Appellant appeals. Case Number: CO-2004-0373-01 |
|
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | |||
| Appellant: | TROWBRIDGE PARTNERS, L.P., A MISSISSIPPI
LIMITED PARTNERSHIP; PHIL MOORE; AND
NEAL CLEMENT
|
W. WHITAKER RAYNER
STEPHEN W. RIMMER |
||
| Appellee: | MISSISSIPPI TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION | RICKY L. BOGGAN ALAN M. PURDIE |
|
|
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 - Comparable sales - Deductions from compensation - Zoning classifications |
| Summary of the Facts: | The Mississippi Transportation Commission filed a complaint in the Madison County Special Court of Eminent Domain against Trowbridge Partners to condemn 5.05 acres of 8.45 acres of undeveloped land in the City of Madison. The Madison County Special Court of Eminent Domain awarded the Commission title and immediate possession of the condemned 5.05 acres. At the trial to establish just compensation, the jury returned a verdict of $1,108,941. Trowbridge appeals. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | Issue 1: Expert testimony Trowbridge argues that the testimony of the Commission’s appraiser that smaller parcels of land are worth more per square foot enhanced the value of the two remaining parcels. The appraiser gave no testimony stating that the value of the remainder parcels was enhanced by the taking but only testified that smaller parcels are worth more per square foot than larger parcels. Size, use, location, topography, and other, like factors determine the value of land in eminent domain proceedings. Witnesses may testify concerning any specific quality, item or change in the property or its attributes, so long as this is ultimately related to the value of the property remaining after the taking. The appraiser’s testimony that smaller parcels are worth more per square foot was relevant to the issue of the fair market value of the remainder property. Trowbridge argues that the court erred in allowing the appraiser to make adjustments for size to the comparable sales during his determination of value of the property before the taking, when he did not make any adjustments for size to the comparable sales during his determination of value of the remaining property. Comparable sales must relate to and possess similar qualities to the land involved in the sale. Appraisers may make adjustments to comparable sales to determine the value of the subject property in eminent domain proceedings. Therefore, the trial court did not err in allowing the appraiser during his determination of value of the remainder property to consider only the comparable sales similar in size to the remaining parcels. Issue 2: Deductions from compensation Trowbridge argues that the appraiser’s assessment of compensation did not account for all of the alleged damages to the remainder property and that he reduced his assessment of damages by the enhanced value of the remaining parcels. Although the appraiser did not agree with Trowbridge regarding the extent of the damages to the remainder property, he made no error in testifying that the fair market value of the remainder property was the same before and after the taking. Issue 3: Zoning classifications Trowbridge argues that the appraiser improperly disregarded the zoning classifications when determining the highest and the best use of the remainder property. The testimony of Trowbridge’s expert appraiser that the best use of the subject property was retail commercial use was allowed. Therefore, valuations by both parties’ expert appraisers were admitted to be considered by the jurors in reaching their decision. Because the appraiser evaluated the subject property in accordance with the legal parameters of the existing zoning restrictions, there was no requirement that any consideration should have been given to potential zoning changes. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
