260 North 12th Street, LLC v. State of Wisconsin Department of Transportation
808 N.W.2d 372
Wis.2011Background
- DOT exercised eminent domain to acquire Ryan's property for the Marquette Interchange; a jury awarded $2,001,725 as just compensation on March 30, 2005.
- Evidence of environmental contamination and remediation costs was admitted at trial and presented to affect fair market value.
- Ryan challenged admissibility of contamination evidence and remediation costs, and argued the circuit court erred in allowing MacWilliams' appraisal testimony, among other issues.
- Ryan's experts Messner and Michaelchuck were not timely disclosed under the scheduling order and were excluded, prompting post-trial motions.
- The circuit court and the court of appeals held that contamination evidence is admissible if relevant to fair market value, that MacWilliams' testimony was admissible, and that sanctioning Ryan for late disclosures was proper; Ryan sought Supreme Court review.
- The Wisconsin Supreme Court affirmed, outlining the standards for admissibility of contamination evidence, expert testimony, sanctions for scheduling-order violations, and jury instructions in total-take condemnation.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admissibility of contamination evidence in condemnation | Ryan argues contamination and remediation costs are legally inadmissible | DOT contends evidence is admissible if relevant to fair market value | Admissible, within circuit court discretion, if relevant to fair market value |
| Admissibility of MacWilliams' testimony | MacWilliams' methodology for contaminated property is speculative | Testimony admissible; flaws affect weight not admissibility | Admissible; flaws go to weight rather than admissibility |
| Sanctions for untimely expert disclosures | Exclusion of Messner and Michaelchuck was overly harsh | Sanctions appropriate to enforce scheduling order | Sanction proper; exclusion upheld |
| Propriety of jury instructions | Proposed instructions on remediation costs and impaired vs unimpaired value required | Standard JI 8100 instruction adequate | Given instruction adequate; no reversible error |
Key Cases Cited
- Lingle v. Chevron U.S.A. Inc., 544 U.S. 528 (U.S. Supreme Court 2005) (Takings analysis andJust compensation principles apply)
- E-L Enters., Inc. v. Milwaukee Metro. Sewerage Dist., 326 Wis. 2d 82 (Wis. 2010) (Statutory interpretation of takings and valuation)
- Spiegelberg v. State, 291 Wis. 2d 601 (Wis. 2006) (Fair market value standards in condemnation)
- Standard Theatres, Inc. v. DOT, 118 Wis. 2d 730 (Wis. 1984) ( liberal construction of §32.09 and valuation principles)
- Clarmar Realty Co. v. Redevelopment Auth. of Milwaukee, 129 Wis. 2d 81 (Wis. 1986) (Every element affecting value considered in fair market value)
- United States v. Commodities Trading Corp., 339 U.S. 121 (U.S. Supreme Court 1950) (Just compensation as balancing owner and public interests)
- City of Milwaukee Post No. 2874 Veterans of Foreign Wars of the U.S. v. Redevelopment Auth. of Milwaukee, 319 Wis. 2d 553 (Wis. 2009) (Foundation for taking and compensation standards)
- Arents v. ANR Pipeline Co., 281 Wis. 2d 173 (Wis. 2005) (Admissibility and weight of expert testimony)