Gulf South Pipeline Co., LP v. Pitre


<- Return to Search Results


Docket Number: 2007-CT-01308-SCT
Linked Case(s): 2007-CA-01308-COA ; 2007-CA-01308-COA ; 2007-CT-01308-SCT ; 2007-CT-01308-SCT

Supreme Court: Opinion Link
Opinion Date: 04-15-2010
Opinion Author: Randolph, J.
Holding: Reversed and remanded

Additional Case Information: Topic: Eminent domain - Expert testimony - M.R.E. 702 - Fair market value
Judge(s) Concurring: Waller, C.J., Carlson, P.J., Dickinson, Lamar, Chandler and Pierce, JJ.
Dissenting Author : Kitchens, J., With Separate Written Opinion
Dissent Joined By : Graves, P.J.
Procedural History: Bench Trial; JNOV
Nature of the Case: CIVIL - EMINENT DOMAIN
Writ of Certiorari: yes
Appealed from Court of Appeals

Trial Court: Date of Trial Judgment: 06-26-2007
Appealed from: WARREN COUNTY SPECIAL COURT OF EMINENT DOMAIN
Judge: John Price, Jr.
Disposition: Following a jury verdict in favor of Pitre for $175,000, Gulf South moved for judgment notwithstanding the verdict, which was denied. On appeal, the Mississippi Court of Appeals affirmed.
Case Number: 06,0689-CO

Note: This opinion reverses and remands a previous opinion by the Court of Appeals. See the original opinion at: http://www.mssc.state.ms.us/Images/Opinions/CO53996.pdf

  Party Name: Attorney Name:   Brief(s) Available:
Appellant: Gulf South Pipeline Company, LP




LEANN W. NEALEY, FRED EXZELL BOURN, III, ROBERT C. GALLOWAY



 
  • Appellant #1 Brief
  • Supplemental Brief

  • Appellee: Blanche Marie Downey Pitre DAVID M. SESSUMS  

    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 - Fair market value

    Summary of the Facts: Gulf South Pipeline Company sought a 5.59-acre easement and right-of-way for a forty-two-inch pipeline through 115 acres of property owned by Blanche Pitre in Warren County. During trial in the Warren County Special Court of Eminent Domain, Gulf South’s appraiser valued the property to be taken at $38,250. Pitre’s appraiser opined that total damage to Pitre’s property, including damage to property not taken, was approximately $175,000. The jury returned a verdict in favor of Pitre for $175,000. The Court of Appeals affirmed. The Supreme Court granted certiorari.

    Summary of Opinion Analysis: The issue in this case is whether an appraiser can offer opinion testimony on diminution, or lack thereof, without utilizing any of the three recognized methods for determining the fair market value of real property. Just compensation in cases involving a partial taking is generally the value of the part taken plus all the damages which the residue of the property suffers, including a diminution in the value of the remainder. After a prima facie case has been made out by the condemnor, then, if the landowner expects to receive more compensation than that shown, he must go forward with the evidence showing such damage. Three standards are accepted in determining fair market value for real property: the cost approach, the income-capitalization approach, and the market-data or comparative-sales approach. The market-data or comparable-sales approach was used by the experts for both parties for the property actually taken, but not for the remainder. Using that approach, the value estimate is predicated upon prices actually paid in open market transactions for various properties similar to the one at issue in the appraisal. Neither expert offered admissible market-data or comparable-sales evidence for the diminution, or lack thereof, in the value of the remainder. Under M.R.E. 702, the trial court must first determine whether expert testimony is relevant and, second, whether the proffered testimony is reliable. No serious question arises as to relevancy. Certainly, the value of property is relevant in an eminent-domain taking. However, neither expert’s testimony as to diminution of the remainder satisfies the requirements of our rules and established caselaw. Both failed to use time-tested techniques, supported by peer review or publications, and/or industry standards generally accepted within his field of expertise. Neither offered comparable sales, whether from Warren County, or any other county in this state. Although there is no dispute that both experts were qualified appraisers, the lack of an acceptable methodology to formulate the subject opinions fails a Daubert analysis.


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