A quick one from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, in a federal condemnation, United States ex rel TVA v. 1.73 Acres of Land, No. 15-5530 (May 5, 2016).
The Tennessee Valley Authority condemned an easement on a strip of Mr. Thomas’ undeveloped land (zoned for agricultural/residential uses) for utility lines. The owner said he had plans to develop a hotel on the site to take advantage of the views from the nearby interstate highway. The case was heading to a jury trial on the issue of just compensation.
The district court, however, refused to let the jury consider the owner’s expert witness report. The expert was going to testify about the feasibility of the site for a hotel, and how power lines killed those plans. Lacking an expert witness, the owner testified at trial about the value of his land.At the close of the evidence, the district court granted the government judgment as a matter of law (fka directed verdict), concluding there wasn’t any evidence introduced by the property owner to contradict the government’s valuation evidence, and thus the jury could not consider the case. Owner appealed.
The Sixth Circuit affirmed. The District Court properly kept out the owner’s expert under its gatekeeping function under Federal Rules of Evidence 702. The expert’s report regarding the feasibility of building a hotel was a mere 2 pages, and made conclusions without any support. There was no foundation to allow the jury to conclude that there was a reasonable likelihood of an upzoning from agricultural uses to allow a hotel, nor did the expert use the “before and after” method to calculate the value of the easement.
The court also concluded the owner’s testimony was pretty worthless. His beliefs about the possibility for a hotel in the future were also not backed up with any showing about the probabilities for an upzoning, nor was there any credible objective evidence about future market demand. Having nothing but the owner’s words, the court affirmed:
The fact remains though that Thomas, who bore the burden of proof, did not overcome the presumption that the highest and best use of the property was its existing use as agricultural land. The property is zoned mainly for agricultural use and Thomas continued to use the property for agricultural purposes after closing on its sale. This evidence overwhelmingly supported the district court’s decision to exclude from jury consideration any evidence whose admissibility depended upon the property having commercial use.
Slip op. at 7.
As for why the owner approached the case this way, and didn’t retain an expert witness whose testimony would be admissible, who knows. Sometimes, you really do “go to war with the army you have,” and there’s not much choice due to circumstances, budget, or otherwise. Maybe this was one of those situations.
United States ex rel TVA v. 1.72 Acres of Land, No. 15-5530 (6th Cir. May 5, 2016)