Centerpoint Energy Gas Transmission Co. v. Green
2012 Ark. App. 326
| Ark. Ct. App. | 2012Background
- Green owns 2.358 acres on Lake Catherine in Garland County, with a 7,700-square-foot restaurant building on the western portion and mostly vacant land elsewhere.
- Green purchased the property in 2009 for $235,513.31; a 20-foot gas-line easement ran diagonally across the eastern/northeastern portions prior to taking.
- CenterPoint filed a condemnation action on Feb 11, 2010 seeking a 40-foot easement and an adjacent temporary workspace easement; CenterPoint deposited $7,200 into court and possession was ordered.
- Just compensation was to be the difference in value before and after the taking plus compensation for the temporary workspace; authorities cited include Rest Hills Memorial Park and Brill on damages.
- Green’s appraiser Pearce valued before at $235,000 and after at $174,400 (difference $60,600) with $2,500 for the workspace; CenterPoint’s Stone valued before at $174,400 and after at $174,400 (difference $13,600) with $2,400 workspace (total $16,100).
- The circuit court issued a July 28, 2011 letter ruling valuing before at $235,000, after at $174,400, awarding $60,600 plus $2,500 for the workspace ($63,100 total), later amended to $55,900 after the $7,200 deposition.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Rule 52(a) findings sufficiency | CenterPoint seeks more detailed findings. | Pittman contends existing findings are sufficient to review. | Findings were sufficient for appellate review. |
| Admission of building-plans testimony | Green’s testimony on proposed condo plans was relevant; possibly prejudicial. | Evidence was speculative and improperly admitted. | No reversible error; testimony did not drive the award; bench trial mitigated risk. |
| Evidentiary use of construction-condition evidence | Photos and testimony about construction outside workspace easement were relevant. | Temporary construction impacts are irrelevant to pre- and post-taking value. | Evidence either not admitted or not relied upon for award; no reversal. |
| Just-compensation support and expert testimony | Pearce’s appraisal should be treated as valid despite not formally tendered as expert. | Pearce lacked formal expert tender; credibility questioned due to acreage and comparables. | Pearce qualified as an expert; award supported by the record; no clear error. |
Key Cases Cited
- Rest Hills Memorial Park, Inc. v. Clayton Chapel Sewer Improvement Dist. No. 233, 6 Ark.App. 180 (Ark. App. 1982) (basis for measuring just compensation in eminent domain)
- Howard W. Brill, Arkansas Law of Damages, not provided (not provided) (authority on damages standards in takings)
- Arkansas State Highway Commission v. Watkins, 229 Ark. 27 (1958) (limits on lay witness testimony about value if not established as proper basis)
- Ozark Gas Transmission System v. Hill, 10 Ark. App. 415 (1984) (allowable scope of lay testimony on property value)
- Arkansas Louisiana Gas Co. v. Cates, 10 Ark. App. 426 (1984) (comparable-sales approach considerations)
- McWhorter v. McWhorter, 70 Ark.App. 41 (2000) (Rule 52(a) findings when basis is ascertainable)
- St. Joseph’s Mercy Health Center v. Edwards, 2011 Ark. App. 560 (Ark. App. 2011) (abuse-of-discretion standard for evidentiary rulings)
- Walls v. State, 336 Ark. 490 (1999) (bench trials and evidence relevance)
- Rich Mountain Electric Cooperative, Inc. v. Revels, 311 Ark. 1 (1992) (prejudice standard and admissibility of evidence)
- King v. French, 2011 Ark. App. 257 (Ark. App. 2011) (standard for reviewing bench-trial findings)