City of Tucson, Corp. v. Cheryl A. Tanno & the Estate
431 P.3d 202
Ariz. Ct. App.2018Background
- City of Tucson condemned the Tannos' parcel for the "Downtown Links" roadway project; jury trial was held to determine just compensation.
- After discovery, city filed motions in limine excluding parts of the Tannos' expert testimony, owner testimony, and certain legal theories; trial court granted most motions.
- Trial proceeded on market-value as-of-date-of-summons; court reaffirmed evidentiary rulings at trial and sometimes admitted more evidence than in pretrial rulings.
- Jury awarded the Tannos $365,910; trial court entered final judgment and Tannos appealed alleging evidentiary error, denied jury instructions, and failure to sanction discovery violations.
- Central contested doctrines: project-influence/"condemnation blight," highest-and-best-use including assemblage (joinder), and scope of owner valuation testimony.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admissibility of evidence of prior ADOT project (project influence/condemnation blight) | ADOT's decades-old project was effectively the same as Downtown Links; prior project anticipation depressed property value and should be admitted | Downtown Links is a distinct city project begun later; only value changes caused by the condemning project are disregarded | Court affirmed exclusion: reasonable evidence supported distinguishing the ADOT project from Downtown Links, so earlier project influence was not attributable and was excluded |
| Admissibility of assemblage (best use / joinder) evidence | Property had potential highest-and-best use as part of an assembled larger tract; city documents support potential assemblage | Assemblage was speculative, market support lacking, and surrounding interests were owned by public entities; expert's valuation did not rely on assemblage | Court affirmed exclusion: assemblage was too remote/speculative and had minimal probative value; Rule 403 concerns justified exclusion |
| Owner testimony about hypothetical investment-based value (Cheryl Tanno's opinion) | Cheryl could explain a 1993 agreed value and show what it would have grown to (S&P 500) to support her view of 2015 value | Hypothetical investment unrelated to property components of value; Cheryl could not tie investment math to fair market value | Court affirmed limitation: owner testimony must be grounded in owner knowledge of property value components; hypothetical investment was irrelevant or unduly prejudicial under Rule 403 |
| Whether motions in limine improperly granted dispositive relief (Rule 56 challenge) | The Tannos argued motions in limine functioned as improper summary-judgment-style disposals of claims/evidence | City argued motions addressed evidentiary limits, not dismissal of the claim; rulings narrowed admissible evidence but did not foreclose compensation claim | Court rejected the Rule 56 equivalence: motions addressed evidentiary disputes appropriately; no error in limiting evidence via motions in limine |
Key Cases Cited
- City of Phoenix v. Wilson, 200 Ariz. 2 (discusses highest-and-best-use and market-value standard)
- City of Phoenix v. Clauss, 177 Ariz. 566 (project-influence/condemnation blight doctrine)
- City of Tucson v. Ruelas, 19 Ariz. App. 530 (project scope test for project influence)
- Town of Paradise Valley v. Laughlin, 174 Ariz. 484 (owner may testify on value based on owner knowledge)
- City of Tucson v. Estate of DeConcini, 155 Ariz. 582 (limits on remote/speculative damages in eminent domain)
- Toy v. Katz, 192 Ariz. 73 (abuse-of-discretion standard for evidentiary rulings)
- Crackel v. Allstate Ins. Co., 208 Ariz. 252 (trial court's broad discretion over evidence admission)