City of Jacksonville v. Nixon
442 S.W.3d 906
Ark. Ct. App.2014Background
- eminent-domain action under Ark. Code Ann. §18-15-201; City sought condemnation and immediate possession for Graham Road Project across multiple defendants including the Nixons
- Nixons owned Tracts 35, 36, and 74 to be condemned; circuit court issued immediate-possession order on Sept. 28, 2010
- amended and agreed order allowed immediate possession but reserved adjudication of monetary damages
- bench trial determined just compensation totaling $73,868.84 in April 2012; appeal dismissed for lack of final order
- judgment and Rule 54(b) certificate entered Sept. 26, 2013; City timely appeal
- issues raised include irregularity in proceedings, damages categories (living fence, permanent and temporary easements), and interest; standard of review applied to bench-trial findings
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Irregularity in proceedings validity | City argues improper ordering of proof and trial proceedings | Nixon contends no preservation due to appeal timing; City did not preserve | Issue not preserved; final order review controls; irregularity not reversed on appeal |
| Living fence damages | City disputes valuation; argues restoration value or replacement value guide | Nixons’ evidence supports loss value; no error in award | Court affirmed award of $41,226.25 as value of damages for living fence |
| Permanent easements valuation | City valued easements at $23,450; seeks higher value | Nixons offered evidence supporting higher value; credibility for trial court to decide | Court affirmed $29,992.59 award for permanent easements |
| Temporary easements valuation | City argues lower award appropriate from rent value | Nixon supported higher temporary-use value; trial court’s award not clearly erroneous | Court affirmed $1,325 for temporary-construction easements (over $375) |
| Interest on awards | City challenged pre- and post-judgment interest | Argument raised in reply brief; not properly preserved | Issue not addressed on appeal due to procedural timing |
Key Cases Cited
- Springfield & Memphis Ry. v. Rhea, 44 Ark. 258 (1884) (landowners bear burden of proving damages; defendant has opening and conclusion rights)
- Ark. State Highway Comm’n v. Post, 330 Ark. 369, 955 S.W.2d 496 (1997) (burden on owner to prove adequacy of City’s valuation; use of comparables)
- Young v. Ark. State Highway Comm’n, 242 Ark. 812, 415 S.W.2d 575 (1967) (damages = value of land taken plus damages to remainder; guidance on partial takings)
- Ark. State Highway Comm’n v. Lewis, 2010 Ark. App. 234, 374 S.W.3d 214 (2010) (standard for just compensation in partial-takings; market-value framework)
- Ark. State Highway Comm’n v. Barker, 326 Ark. 403, 931 S.W.2d 138 (1996) (valuation framework for partial takings; burden on landowner to prove compensation)
- City of Rockport v. City of Malvern, 2010 Ark. 449, 374 S.W.3d 660 (2010) (credibility and fact-finding; review of evidentiary support in damages)
- Revels v. Knighton, 305 Ark. 109, 805 S.W.2d 649 (1991) (necessity to prove value of loss; admissible lay testimony on value)
- Cramer v. Ark. Okla. Gas Corp., 316 Ark. 465, 872 S.W.2d 390 (1994) (evidence basics for valuation and damages in condemnation)
- Ark. Dep’t of Human Servs. v. Shipman, 25 Ark. App. 247, 756 S.W.2d 930 (1988) (appellate review of administrative decisions; specificity in notices of appeal)
- Findlay (City of Fort Smith v. Findlay), 48 Ark. App. 197, 893 S.W.2d 358 (1995) (measurement of temporary easement value; fair rental value)