Here's the Virginia Department of Transportation's answering brief in the case which we posted about last week, Ramsey v. Commissioner of Highways, now pending before the Virginia Supreme Court.
Under Virginia's condemnation procedures, as a prerequisite to a court exercising jurisdiction over an eminent domain action, a state condemning agency must as an initial step present to the property owner a statement of "the amount which [the condemnor] believes to be just compensation," and must include an appraisal if an appraisal is required.
The trial court viewed the required "statement" as a "settlement offer," and prohibited the property owner from both telling the jury about the statement, and cross-examining the state's appraiser about it. Even though the state's initial statement of just compensation was $246,292, and later, its new appraiser at trial testified that just compensation was only $92,127. The "Savage Appraisal" in the headline of this post refers to the state's first appraisal, performed by Mr. Savage, who, by the time of trial had retired from VDOT.
The brief argues, among other things, that the statutorily-required statement is part of settlement discussions, and thus cannot be admitted under the rules of evidence.
We filed an amicus brief in the case in support of the property owners which argues that the statement is a jurisdictional prerequisite to the circuit court having authority to consider an eminent domain case, and is not a settlement offer. See United States v. 320.0 Acres of Land, 605 F.2d 762 (5th Cir. 1979), a case in which the Fifth Circuit held that a similar statement of just compensation, required by the federal relocation act (on which the Virginia statute is modeled), was not a settlement offer, and the trier of fact was entitled to hear about it and why the government's estimate changed.
Stay tuned, we will keep you posted on this case as it progresses.
Brief of Appellee, Ramsey v. Commissioner of Highways, No. 140929 (Va. Dec. 23, 2014)