Like a lot of jurisdictions, Kentucky allows (or requires upon demand) the jury to view property being taken by eminent domain. In Kentucky, it’s a matter of statute, which requires the court to allow a jury view upon the demand of any party, unless “unusual or extreme circumstances” are present.

In Comm’w of Kentucky v. PTL Warehousing, LLC, No. 2019-CA-388-MR (Apr. 2, 2021), the trial court did not approve of the condemnor’s request that the jury view the site and the warehouse taken. The court concluded that a view would not be helpful to the jurors because “the jurors had likely eaten at an Arby’s which was located across the street from the subject property.” Slip op. at 3. The court asked the jurors whether they indeed had eaten at Arby’s. The court concluded they were already familiar enough with the property (the condemned property, not the Arby’s).

Trial…

Continue Reading Google Maps And Arby’s Visit Aren’t Enough To Overcome Jury View

Here’s the Wisconsin Supreme Court’s 4-3 opinion in a case we’ve been following, Christus Lutheran Church of Appleton v. Wis. Dep’t of Trans., No. 2018AP 1114 (Apr. 1, 2021). Even though it was close, after oral arguments, we were hoping for a more positive result.

This is the case in which the Court of Appeals concluded that DOT’s jurisdictional offer was not based on the “full narrative appraisal” required by the statute. The offer was for $403k, but the appraisal on which it was based valued the compensation at $133k.

Wait, you ask, how so? True, the DOT offer was more than its appraisal, but it didn’t back up the increase with any appraisal other than its $133k appraisal. The increase was the result of DOT’s internal administrative review. Read that again: no appraisal supported the $403k offer.

Follow along: DOT’s appraiser opined that the owner incurred…

Continue Reading Wisconsin Shrugs: Appraisal Omitting Severance Damages Qualifies As “Full Narrative Appraisal” Because DOT’s Valuation Later Went Up

Pop quiz: in eminent domain valuation proceedings, may an owner who is not qualified as an expert witness testify about the value of her or his own property?

If you said “yes,” most courts would agree with you, either as percipient witness testimony or as lay expert testimony. As would the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit in most circumstances. As the court noted, “federal courts routinely permit landowners to testify as to the value of their real property in eminent domain cases.”

But as shown in the court’s (unpublished) per curiam opinion in Mountain Valley Pipeline, LLC v. 0.47 Acres of Land, No. 20-1306 (Mar. 23, 2021), there are limitations.

There, the owner opposed the pipeline condemnor’s motion for summary judgment on valuation by submitting his counter-declaration in which he testified about the value of his own property. Did that create a triable issue of…

Continue Reading CA4 (unpub): Owner Can Testify About Valuation Of Own Property, Unless He Also Testifies About Other Stuff