As we all understand, when valuing property in eminent domain, the highest and best use of not limited to the property's existing use or its current zoning. The owner is entitled to prove that she could reasonably make a more intensive use of the property.
Rodman v. Commonwealth, No. 12-P-223 (Oct. 7, 2014) involved a partial taking of partially developed land (part of it was used as temporary parking lot for the Patriots' stadium, across Route 1 from the property) for a road expansion by the Massachusetts Department of Highways. When at trial the property owner attempted to show that the land could be developed much more intensely before the taking than after, the court refused to let the jury hear evidence of the owner's development plans, and evidence of the development approach to value. "Ultimately, the jury awarded damages of $600,800, the exact amount the Commonwealth's expert testified to and less than the pro tanto award of $765,000." Slip op. at 7.
The court of appeals reversed and sent the case back. "There is little question that at the time of the taking, a reasonable buyer would have explored how the plaintiffs' property could be developed in determining how much to pay for it." Slip op. at 11. "Thus, whether the property is properly valued as a whole or by the lot approach, its value could be enhanced by consideration of the range of uses that would potentially be allowed on the property." Id. at 11-12. The jury was entitled to hear and consider the property owner's evidence.
It's a long-ish opinion (23 pages) but a fairly quick read and we won't detail it here, but if you are interested in such things, read the whole thing.
Rodman v. Commonwealth, No. 12-P-223 (Mass. App. Oct. 7, 2014)
