In Johnson v. Des Moines Metropolitan Wastewater Reclamation Authority, No. 11-0444 (May 18, 2012), the Iowa Supreme Court held that two separate condemnation cases should not have been consolidated even though each case involved the taking of part of the same parent tract of land from the same landowner. The court concluded that these facts alone were not enough, and that other considerations demonstrated that the cases should be heard separately:
- different condemnors were taking the parcels – the court rejected the owner’s claim that the taking authorities were “similar”
- the takings were instituted four months apart
- different reasons supported each condemnation (one was for a street relocation and to support a nearby airport, while the other was for a sewer connection)
The court rejected the trial court’s determination that the fact the property owner was using the same expert witnesses in both cases created “common issues of fact of law,” and instead concluded that hearing the cases together would allow the jury considering one taking to improperly consider evidence from the other taking that would not otherwise be admissible. For example, the court feared that a limiting instruction to not treat the value in Case #1 as a comparable in valuing Case #2 might be disregarded by the jury.
The property owner argued that the combined affect of multiple takings in a short period of time reduced the value of the remaining land more than valuing each separately using the before-and-after method, and thus a single jury should hear the cases. The court rejected the argument, concluding that it was “speculative — indeed [the owner] could benefit from inconsistent verdicts.” Slip op. at 12.
Our thanks to R. Michael Hayes for sending this opinion our way.