CNL APF Partners, LP v. Department of Transportation
307 Ga. App. 511
| Ga. Ct. App. | 2010Background
- DOT filed condemnation proceeding on property with a restaurant; it was a total taking and condemnees sought jury trial for just and adequate compensation.
- In Case No. A10A1812, CNL APF Partners challenged the denial of partial summary judgment on RCI's lease obligations at taking and related issues; the court also ruled on motions to strike and in limine.
- In Case No. A10A1991, RCI Realty and Restaurant Concepts appealed several in limine rulings excluding evidence, and DOT sought evidentiary rulings related to pre-condemnation funds, fire cause, prior knowledge of condemnation, a 2003 compromise letter, and prior rent.
- In December 2004, CNL purchased the subject property from RCI and leased back to RCI, which sublet to Restaurant Concepts; restaurant operated until a January 9, 2006 fire.
- Following the fire, RCI stopped operating but continued paying rent; on March 23, 2006, DOT petitioned to condemn and deposited its value estimate into court; RCI exercised an option to terminate lease on April 20, 2006; insurance paid subsequent to condemnation.
- The court addressed multiple evidentiary and contract-interpretation issues affecting what the jury could consider for determining just and adequate compensation.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court erred in denying partial summary judgment on RCI's lease obligations at taking | CNL argues RCI must continue rent and restore/repair per lease. | DOT contends no merits on contractual construction in condemnation context. | Vacate and remand for contract construction; denial reversed. |
| Whether the court erred in denying CNL's motion to strike DOT's untimely brief | CNL asserts DOT brief was over 30 days late. | DOT argues no prejudice since brief contained only legal argument. | Affirmed; no abuse of discretion. |
| Whether the court erred in denying CNL's motion in limine to exclude pre-judgment interest evidence | Pre-judgment interest is not evidence the jury should consider in awarding just and adequate compensation. | Interest may be addressed by the court post-verdict; jurors should not be instructed to ignore it entirely. | Reversed; pre-judgment interest evidence excluded. |
| Whether the court properly excluded or admitted funds deposited in court registry and related items in A10A1991 | Deposited funds should be excluded as irrelevant to the jury's de novo determination of value. | Evidence of funds deposit may bear on valuation issues. | Excluded; court erred in not excluding funds deposited with court registry. |
| Whether the court properly excluded evidence of the fire’s cause in determining just and adequate compensation | Cause of the fire could influence insurance and market value at taking. | Only uncertainty about insurance affects value; the cause itself is not directly relevant. | Excluded; court abused discretion by denying exclusion. |
Key Cases Cited
- Dept. of Transp. v. Gunnels, 175 Ga.App. 632 (Ga. Ct. App. 1985) (evidence of initial estimate and court registry deposits is generally not admissible in jury valuation)
- Younis v. Housing Authority, 279 Ga.App. 599 (Ga. Ct. App. 2006) (pre-judgment-interest instruction and admissibility standards)
- Acree Oil Co. v. Dept. of Transp., 266 Ga. 336 (Ga. 1996) (evidence admissibility standards in condemnation actions)
- City of Atlanta v. West, 123 Ga.App. 255 (Ga. Ct. App. 1971) (exclusion of actions taken with knowledge of impending condemnation for jury value purposes)
- Dept. of Transp. v. A.R.C. Security, 189 Ga.App. 34 (Ga. Ct. App. 1988) (offers to compromise admissibility in condemnation context)
- Dept. of Transp. v. Wright, 169 Ga.App. 332 (Ga. Ct. App. 1983) (timeliness and remoteness of statements as admissions against interest)
- MARTA v. Funk, 266 Ga. 64 (Ga. 1995) (valuation standards in condemnation and impact on compensation)