But Barnwell held only that costs associated with excavation or filling in condemned property are irrelevant in that the value of a condemned property is determined on the basis of its market value for any purpose, rather than the use for which the condemnor acquired the property. State Highway Dept., 2 for their position that the costs associated with removing the waste from the subject property are immaterial in determining the value of the property at the time of the taking.
#WILLIAM CLARY PROPERTY EVALUATOR TRIAL#
A09A1327.ġ. The condemnees argue that the trial court erred by admitting evidence and testimony regarding the quantity and cost of removing waste material from the subject property because it was irrelevant to the issue of just and adequate compensation. A09A1223, and the City appeals the denial of its motion for attorney fees in Case No. The condemnees appeal the verdict and judgment in Case No. Thereafter, the City moved for attorney fees and expenses of litigation pursuant to former OCGA § 22-2-84.1, and the trial court denied the motion. The trial court denied the condemnees' motion in limine to exclude evidence regarding waste material removed from the subject property, including the cost to the City to remove the material.Īt the conclusion of the trial, the jury returned a $452,000 verdict, and the trial court entered judgment in that amount. Following a hearing, the trial court granted the City's motion in limine to exclude evidence regarding the condemnees' agreement with United Retail, concluding that the agreement was not admissible as direct evidence of value the trial court also excluded the testimony of the condemnees regarding value that was based on the language of the agreement. Prior to trial, the parties filed motions in limine seeking to exclude certain evidence and testimony at trial. Following a hearing, the Special Master entered an award in the amount of $609,000, and the condemnees appealed the award to the superior court.
The City decided to construct a new city hall, and in August 2005, the City filed its petition to condemn the subject property pursuant to OCGA § 22-2-100 et seq. In or around November 2003, the condemnees entered into an agreement with United Retail Development Company, LLC (“United Retail”), a company acting as an agent for Eckerd Drugstores, to sell a portion of the subject property however, the purchase did not go through because, as permitted by the agreement, United Retail determined that the site was not suitable for an Eckerd Drugstore. The subject property was occupied by a restaurant (the Huddle House) and a structure known as the Maytag Building. The area surrounding the subject property was occupied by a library, a florist shop, church buildings, and a ball field owned by the church.
The condemnees own a 1.24-acre tract of land in Stockbridge near the intersection of East Atlanta Road and Highway 42 (“the subject property”). A09A1223 and reverse and remand in Case No. We consolidate these appeals, and, for the reasons set forth below, we affirm in Case No. The City of Stockbridge cross-appeals, alleging that the trial court erred by failing to award attorney fees under former OCGA § 22-2-84.1.
Thurman (“condemnees”) appeal from a jury award for compensation in a taking of a tract of land in Henry County, arguing that the trial court erred by admitting certain evidence and by excluding other evidence.
Clary, individually, and as executrix of the estate of J.D.
0 kommentar(er)
