Columbia Gas Transmission, LLC v. 76 Acres, More or Less, in Baltimore & Harford Counties
701 F. App'x 221
4th Cir.2017Background
- Columbia Gas, authorized by FERC, filed a condemnation action to acquire permanent and temporary pipeline easements across several Maryland properties and obtained a district-court order granting immediate possession after posting bond.
- The complaint specified dimensions and acreage for permanent and temporary easements for each parcel (including the Boyces, Boyer, and Kenney). Columbia constructed the pipeline and began restoration before trial.
- At trial the jury awarded the landowners damages for permanent easements, temporary easements, and remainder/severance; the Boyces’ award for the temporary easement was notably large relative to others.
- Columbia objected pretrial to (1) the landowners’ expert under Daubert and (2) allowing landowners to assert that Columbia took property beyond the easements described in the preliminary possession order; both motions were denied.
- On appeal Columbia argued the district court erred by allowing the jury to determine or modify the size of Columbia’s taking (particularly the Boyces’ temporary easement), erred in evidentiary rulings, and that some awards lacked sufficient evidence. The landowners cross‑appealed the constitutionality of the immediate-possession injunction; Kenney separately challenged exclusion of replacement-tree costs.
- The Fourth Circuit concluded the district court erred by permitting the jury to treat the size of Columbia’s temporary taking as a contested factual issue (allowing damages for property outside the court’s possession order), vacated and remanded only the Boyces’ temporary‑easement award, and otherwise affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a condemnor's chosen size of taking can be modified by the court/jury in a condemnation action | Boyces: damages may include loss/use of additional land temporarily affected by construction (i.e., temporary severance damages) | Columbia: size of the taking is discretionary to the condemnor and cannot be altered in the condemnation proceeding; claims for extra taking must be pursued separately | Court: condemned authority's determination of the extent of the take is not for the jury; district court erred by allowing the Boyces to contest/expand the temporary easement size; vacated and remanded Boyces’ temporary-easement award |
| Whether jury instructions permitted impermissible double recovery and expansion of the taking | Columbia: instructions allowed jury to award damages for property outside defined easements and to assume restoration, causing double recovery | Landowners: instructions were proper to value temporary damages and restoration effects | Court: error tracked to the same mistake of allowing expansion of the taking; because Boyces’ temporary award is vacated, further instruction issue need not be separately resolved |
| Admissibility of landowners’ expert (Daubert challenge) | Columbia: expert’s paired-sales analysis was unreliable and not based on truly comparable sales | Landowners: expert used accepted appraisal methodology and Columbia disputed weight, not admissibility | Court: district court did not abuse discretion; Columbia mounted a weight challenge rather than a true Daubert challenge; expert testimony admissible |
| Sufficiency of evidence for damages (including Kenney’s testimony on Lot 3 and tree replacement) | Columbia: some awards lacked evidentiary support; Kenneys were not qualified to opine on value; tree replacement cost excluded improperly | Landowners: owners competent to testify to property value; diminution in value captures tree loss | Court: owners may testify to property value; jury may consider tree loss as diminution in market/rental value; awards supported except Boyces’ temporary-easement award which is remanded |
| Constitutionality/mootness of preliminary injunction granting immediate possession | Landowners: injunction violated separation of powers and was unconstitutional | Columbia: equitable immediate possession permitted under precedent (Natural Gas Act context); trial for compensation occurred | Court: issue is moot (trial occurred) and Sage controls; cross-appeal dismissed |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Reynolds, 397 U.S. 14 (1970) (Rule 71.1 limits jury role in condemnation; except for just compensation, judge decides issues)
- United States v. 21.54 Acres of Land, More or Less, in Marshall Cty., State of W. Va., 491 F.2d 301 (4th Cir. 1973) (extent of take is discretionary for condemnor; judiciary cannot modify that decision)
- United States v. 300 Units of Rentable Hous., Located on Approximately 57.81 Acres of Eielson Air Force Base, 668 F.3d 1119 (9th Cir. 2012) (condemnation suit cannot expand scope of taking; claims for additional taking must be brought separately)
- United States v. Banisadr Bldg. Joint Venture, 65 F.3d 374 (4th Cir. 1995) (measure of damages for temporary taking is rental-market value; partial takings use remainder/severance rules)
- United States v. 97.19 Acres of Land, More or Less, in Montgomery, Washington & Alleghany Ctys., Md., 582 F.2d 878 (4th Cir. 1978) (partial takings: recover value of parcel taken plus severance damages — diminution in market value of residue)
- E. Tenn. Nat. Gas Co. v. Sage, 361 F.3d 808 (4th Cir. 2004) (district courts may award equitable immediate possession in Natural Gas Act condemnation cases)
- TFWS, Inc. v. Schaefer, 325 F.3d 234 (4th Cir. 2003) (distinguishing Daubert challenges to methodology from attacks on weight of expert testimony)
- United States v. 2.33 Acres of Land, more or less, Situate in Wake Cty., State of N.C., 704 F.2d 728 (4th Cir. 1983) (measure of damages in partial takings is diminution in property value)