We won't go into the West Virginia Supreme Court of Appeals' opinion in Gomez v. Kanawha County Comm'n, No. 15-0342 (June 3, 2016) -- it's well-written and easily digested (all citations are in footnotes) -- but point out these highlights:
- The condemnation took Gomez' property for use as a dump site for debris from construction to improve an airport by removing the top of a hill that the FAA said interfered with take offs and landings.
- The stated public use was "improving, maintaining, and operating Yeager Airport."
- Gomez objected, arguing that using her property as a dump didn't qualify, and that a jury -- not the judge -- could make that determination.
- The Supreme Court disagreed: public use is a question of law, and one which the judge determines.
- The court also rejected Gomez' argument that the project influence rule was not applicable. She claimed the valuation must include the use of the land as a dump site, which was more valuable. The court held that this was an enhancement due to the airport project, and in the absence of that project, the market otherwise would not value her property as a dump site. "The Commission cannot be required to pay an enhanced price for the property which its demand alone has created." Slip op. at 27.
- Also affirmed: the trial court's striking of Gomez' appraiser, because his name was not disclosed, and he had not formulated an opinion on fair market value, and only had a critique of the Commission's appraiser's opinion.
- However, the trial court struck Gomez's "claims" because she had not appeared at her deposition. The Supreme Court concluded this was error, because the trial court had not specifically determined that her failure to appear was in bad faith or purposeful.
- Moreover, the Supreme Court held that the term "claims" in the eminent domain context "is meaningless." A claim in a civil case means a claim asserted in a pleading. But West Virginia law doesn't require an answer in condemnation cases. So really, there was nothing for the trial court to strike.
- That also informed the Supreme Court's final points, that the trial court should not have taken judicial notice of the Condemnation Commissioners' Report of value and entered summary judgment for the condemnor. After it struck the owner's valuation expert and her claims, the trial court took judicial notice of the valuation which the Condemnation Commissioners determined, and entered summary judgment. Summary judgment should not have been entered because Gomez properly objected to the Commissioner's valuation, and she was entitled to a jury trial. Even though she didn't have an expert witness about valuation, she could testify herself.
A nice reminder from the court that "While a condemnation proceeding is governed by the Rules of Civil Procedure and the Rules of Evidence, we must remember that the proceeding exists to fulfill a constitutional mandate[.]" Slip op. at 35 (footnotes omitted).
Gomez v. Kanawha County Comm'n, No. 15-0342 (W. Va. June 3, 2016)
