A pretty straightforward one from the Mississippi Supreme Court. Mississippi Transportation Comm'n v. United Assets, LLC, No. 2014-SA-01181-SCT (Feb. 11, 2016), involved a partial taking by MDOT at the intersection of I-59 and Highway 42.
The state's appraiser concluded that commercial development was the highest and best use of the land and settled on the sales comparison approach, explaining "that, when taking the sales comparison approach, the appraiser arrives at a value using sales of real estate similar to the subject property, making adjustments as needed for differences between each sale and the subject property." Slip op. at 3. After concluding that the remainder parcel's HBU was also commercial development, he opined that just compensation for the taken land was $826,035.
Perhaps not surprisingly, the property owner's witnesses disagreed. First its appraisers, a real estate agent, and one of its members testified that the remainder parcel could not be used for commercial development: it was too far from the highway and MDOT's improvements would block the sight line from the road. Second, the owner's appraiser also used the sales comparison approach, but used different comps.
Outside the presence of the jury, the trial court ruled inadmissible some of MDOT's appraiser's before-taking comps, but all of the owner's appraiser's after-taking comps. Slip op. at 5. The owner's appraiser "then testified that the taking of the highway frontage and access eliminated the possibility of commercial use, and that the highest and best use of the remainder would be to hold it for future development once the permanent access road has been constructed. [He] also testified that the after-taking value was zero."
Jury verdict: $1,620,060. MDOT's motion for JNOV denied, appeal followed.
MDOT argued that because the trial court ruled all of the owner's appraiser's post-taking comps inadmissible, he had no basis to conclude that the post-taking value was zero. The Mississippi Supreme Court held that to raise an issue on appeal, you better object at trial (and object hard, because here's how it went down):
During the voir dire of the after-taking comparables outside the presence of the jury, Parker [the owner's appraiser] stated that the property was essentially worthless in the after condition due to the lack of access, and that it only could be held for future use. Once the after-taking comparables were excluded, Parker testified before the jury that, due to the lack of access, the remainder had "inconsequential value” and was “virtually worthless.” Parker also testified that he “[didn’t] see any buyers coming in there and buying [the property] today at any price, period.” MTC made no objection. The trial court then excused the jury to allow United Assets to proffer the excluded comparables.When the trial recommenced, United Assets again asked Parker if the remainder had any significant value, and MTC objected for the first time. The trial court found that Parker already had testified that the remainder had no value. MTC complained that, because the after-taking comparables had been excluded, Parker could not testify about his after-taking appraisal. The trial court allowed voir dire on Parker’s ability to testify that the property had no value, and Parker stated that, based on the testimony so far and the information furnished to him, he was able to render an opinion that the value was zero. The trial court then permitted Parker to testify before the jury that the property had zero value after the taking.
Slip op. at 6-7. You must object "as soon as it appears that the evidence is objectionable," and MDOT didn't. It explained that it didn't do so because Parker had only testified the remainder property only had no commercial value, not no value at all, and that once it became clear that he was testifying that the property had zero uses and value, it objected.
"We are not convinced," held the court. Parker had not limited his initial testimony to commercial value, but testified it was "virtually worthless," and "could not see 'any buyers coming in there and buying [the property] today at any price, period.'" Slip op. at 8. Besides, the error, if there was indeed one, was harmless, because the jury had "personally viewed" the property and rendered a verdict after hearing from other witnesses such as a real estate broker and the owner of the property. Because this was substantial evidence supporting the verdict, the appeals court would not overturn it.
Mississippi Transp. Comm'n v. United Assets, LLC, No. 2014-SA-01181-SCT (Miss. Feb. 11, 2016)
