Adcock v. Miss. Transp. Comm'n
| Docket Number: | 2007-CA-00078-SCT Linked Case(s): 2007-CA-00078-SCT |
|
| Supreme Court: | Opinion Link Opinion Date: 03-20-2008 Opinion Author: Waller, P.J. Holding: Affirmed |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Eminent domain - Expert testimony - M.R.E. 401 - Comparable sales - Sufficiency of evidence Judge(s) Concurring: Smith, C.J., Diaz, P.J., Carlson, Dickinson, Randolph and Lamar, JJ. Dissenting Author : Easley, J., with separate written opinion. Concurs in Result Only: Graves, J. Procedural History: Admin or Agency Judgment; JNOV; Motion for New Trial Nature of the Case: CIVIL - STATE BOARDS AND AGENCIES |
|
| Trial Court: |
Date of Trial Judgment: 06-29-2006 Appealed from: WINSTON COUNTY SPECIAL COURT OF EMINENT DOMAIN Judge: Joseph H. Loper Disposition: Judgment of $17,900 awarded by the Special Court of Eminent Domain of Winston County, Mississippi, as compensation for 4.65 acres condemned by the Mississippi Transportation Commission (MTC). Case Number: 98-0091-CV-L |
|
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | Brief(s) Available: | ||
| Appellant: | Robert D. Adcock and Shirley Dean Adcock |
James C. Mayo |
|
|
| Appellee: | Mississippi Transportation Commission | Josh Freeman; 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 - M.R.E. 401 - Comparable sales - Sufficiency of evidence |
| Summary of the Facts: | In 1998, MTC sought to expand a section of Highway 25 and filed a complaint in the Special Court of Eminent Domain seeking a 4.65-acre portion of the property of Robert and Shirley Adcock. The jury returned a verdict in favor of the Adcocks in the amount of $17,900. The Adcocks appeal. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | Issue 1: Expert testimony The Adcocks argue that the trial court should not have allowed the testimony of MTC’s expert appraiser, because his testimony was not reliable. M.R.E. 401 defining relevant evidence favors admission if the evidence has any probative value at all. Under the modified Daubert standard, the trial court must first determine whether expert testimony is relevant and, second, whether the proffered testimony is reliable. Because the expert’s testimony in this case regarding damages and the methods he used to arrive at those amounts are relevant to an eminent domain case, his testimony satisfied the first prong of the modified Daubert standard. Fair market value is an opinion best formed by competent persons pursuing not just one, but three separate and distinct but nevertheless interrelated, approaches to value: the cost approach, the market data or sales comparison approach, and the income approach. Here, the expert considered all three approaches before applying the comparable sales method to arrive at his “before” and “after” values for the Adcocks’ property. Such a valuation is discredited if the evidence shows that the comparables are entirely different from the property being taken. The comparable properties the expert used in this case were similarly situated to the Adcocks’ property, and his estimates were not based upon mere speculation. Thus, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in allowing the expert testimony of MTC’s appraiser. Issue 2: Sufficiency of evidence The Adcocks argue that MTC failed to provide sufficient evidence that the loss of frontage and loss of access to Highway 25 did not diminish the value of their property. The testimony of MTC’s appraiser provided substantial evidence that the Adcocks continue to have reasonable access to their property and that the lost frontage did not impair the value of their remaining property. So long as other roads afford reasonable access to the property, a jury may find that no damages are warranted by loss of access to a highway. Additionally, lost frontage is considered only to the extent that fair market value of the property is actually impaired. The jury viewed the property, heard testimony from both MTC and the Adcocks’ appraiser, and acted within its prerogative and province to exclude severance damages. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
