Tunica County, et al. v. Matthews, et al.
| Docket Number: | 2004-CA-02352-SCT Linked Case(s): 2004-CA-02352-SCT |
|
| Supreme Court: | Opinion Link Opinion Date: 04-13-2006 Opinion Author: Carlson, J. Holding: Affirmed |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Eminent domain - Expert testimony - M.R.E. 702 - Photographs Judge(s) Concurring: Smith, C.J., Waller, P.J., Easley, Graves and Dickinson, JJ. Non Participating Judge(s): Cobb, P.J., Diaz and Randolph, JJ. Nature of the Case: CIVIL - REAL PROPERTY |
|
| Trial Court: |
Date of Trial Judgment: 06-30-2004 Appealed from: Tunica County Special Court of Eminent Domain Judge: Larry O. Lewis Disposition: The jury determined the value of land. Case Number: 00-0213 |
|
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | |||
| Appellant: | Tunica County, Mississippi, Town of Tunica, Mississippi, and Tunica County Airport Commission |
W. WHITAKER RAYNER
JAMES E. WOODS |
||
| Appellee: | Ann Matthews, Trustee and John Pritchard, Jr. | PAUL R. SCOTT |
|
|
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 - Photographs |
| Summary of the Facts: | Tunica County, the Town of Tunica, and the Tunica County Airport Commission filed this action in The Special Court of Eminent Domain in Tunica County to condemn certain property being used for agricultural purposes in Tunica County and to acquire the property to use as part of an expansion of the existing airport. The landowners’ expert witness valued the land as having a highest and best use, which is the most feasible use that will produce the greatest profit of commercial or industrial property, and arrived at a price of $4,500 per acre, using comparable sales of commercial or industrial land. Granting in part a motion to exclude this testimony, the trial court precluded the expert from using comparable sales of the commercial or industrial property, or from testifying that the highest and best use for the property was commercial or industrial. Nonetheless, the landowners prevailed at trial with a judgment that the land should be valued at $4,500 per acre. Tunica appeals. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | Issue 1: Expert testimony The landowners’ expert testified that the highest and best use of the land was commercial or industrial, and he initially used comparable sales from commercial or industrial property to reach his conclusion that the fair market value of the land should be $4,500 per acre. Tunica’s expert identified the highest and best use of the property as residential or institutional, with an interim use of agricultural. Granting in part Tunica’s motion to exclude, the trial court precluded the landowners’ expert from testifying using these comparables or using this highest and best use. Tunica contends that because the trial court prevented the expert from basing his testimony on comparable sales that are commercial, his new valuation of the land should have been much lower, and, that his testimony therefore lacked reliability and was not the product of proper methodology. Later, after the expert’s results remained the same, Tunica filed a second motion to exclude the testimony, and the trial court denied this motion to exclude. The trial court must make a preliminary assessment of whether the reasoning or methodology underlying the testimony is scientifically valid and of whether that reasoning and methodology properly can be applied to the facts in issue. Testimony concerning the valuation of the land is certainly relevant; it is the reliability of this testimony that is at issue. Tunica questions the reliability of the testimony, taking issue with the expert’s conclusion not changing after the trial court’s ruling. The methodology employed by the expert in this case meets the criteria of M.R.E. 702. The experts both agreed on using the comparable land sales approach as the proper methodology to value the land, a methodology that easily meets the Daubert factors. It was not the expert’s entire testimony, nor his result, which the trial court found to be unreliable; but, instead, the trial court found the use of commercial sales as comparables and the reliance on a highest and best use of commercial and industrial to be unreliable. The trial court made this clear in its orders. The court did not abuse its discretion. The testimony was admissible, thus placing before the jury the issue of what weight or credit to afford to this testimony. Tunica also argues that the expert failed to adopt any new opinion of highest and best use and continued to rely on his initial testimony because he arrived at exactly the same price per acre after the court’s order. It is true that the expert continued to believe that the highest and best use of the land should have been commercial or industrial, but the court did not order him to change his actual opinion. The court order only prohibited his testimony based on comparables of commercial or industrial land or based on a highest and best use of commercial or industrial. The expert makes it clear in his deposition that, despite his own opinion, he understood the confines of the court order and kept his testimony within those boundaries. Tunica also argues that the expert’s testimony should have been stricken because he placed value on the property based in part on previous airport studies which had identified the land as a possible site for future airport expansion. The airport study did not serve the purpose of showing the benefits which would be available to the general public from the new use of the land, but rather what information existed which was at the disposal of both a knowledgeable and willing seller and buyer. Thus, the court did not abuse its discretion in admitting this testimony. Issue 2: Photographs The trial court admitted photographs offered by the landowners into evidence. Because the photographs were not used as comparables to the landowners’ property at issue, Tunica argues that the pictures were irrelevant and prejudicial, and therefore, only confused the jury. That the photographs were not being introduced as evidence of comparables was made clear at trial. The landowners merely wished to establish that their expert was familiar with the area in which the land was located and that the expert had been thorough in his appraisal of the area. Thus, there was no abuse of discretion in the trial court’s admitting these photographs into evidence. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
