Clark v. Titus County, No. 06-14-00035 (Sep. 19, 2014) is a somewhat civil procedure oriented opinion, specifically about Texas' "no-evidence" motion for summary judgment. But it's a condemnation case, and there's some good background from the court about the eminent domain process in Texas courts and how appraisers calculate fair market value.
Under Texas civil procedure, a "no-evidence" motion is based on the utter lack of evidence to support an essential element of the other side's claim. The county filed such a motion, arguing that the property owners did not submit a "scintilla of probative evidence" about the taken property's fair market value, specifically the value of fencing. Thus, the county asserted, the court was bound to accept the county's valuation in its appraiser's testimony, which among other things, was based on his estimate of the cost of fencing.
The court of appeals reversed. Although the owners did not submit a countervailing appraisal, they did submit their affidavit "swearing that [they] received an estimate that the materials and installation for 2,925 linear feet of fencing would cost $14,625.00 instead of the $11,700.00 [the county's appraiser] alloted for in his appraisal." Slip op. at 9 (footnote omitted). This was enough to get by a "no-evidence" summary judgment motion:
While Gerald’s affidavit does not, within its four corners, provide all information needed to calculate compensation to the Clarks, it does provide information that, when considered in conjunction with Welch’s appraisal, provides a different compensation figure for the Clarks. Because Welch’s appraisal was evidence of market value and Gerald’s affidavit provided evidence to modify some of Welch’s appraisal, the County’s sole ground for its no-evidence summary judgment should have been overruled.Slip op. at 11 (footnote omitted).
Clark v. Titus County, No. 06-14-00035-DV (Tex. App. Sep. 19, 2014)
