Dallas County v. Crestview Corners Car Wash
370 S.W.3d 25
| Tex. App. | 2012Background
- Dallas County condemned part of Crestview Corners Car Wash property to widen Trinity Mills Road; after jury trial, trial court awarded a permanent easement, compensation for the taken land, damages to the remainder, damages for temporary access denial, prejudgment interest, and costs.
- Before trial, both sides challenged appraisers; trial court admitted Crestview’s appraiser and excluded the County’s, and the parties stipulated to the fair market value of the land taken; trial on remainder damages proceeded.
- Pre-condemnation use of the site included car wash, state inspections, and detailing; the taking allegedly eliminated one lane and impaired capacity for certain services on the remainder.
- Crestview removed underground gasoline tanks due to safety concerns near the new road line, arguing costs to cure unsafe conditions should be damages to the remainder.
- The jury awarded $765,320 for damages to the remainder (FMV before vs after plus cost to cure) and $108,307 for temporary denial of access; final judgment included the value taken, prejudgment interest, and costs.
- The County appealed claiming evidentiary errors, improper jury arguments and instructions, and improper prejudgment interest and cost calculations; the court reversed on impairment of access damages and prejudgment interest and remanded for recalculation, affirming all other portions.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Exclusion of County appraisal expert | Wall’s remainder damages were properly admissible and reliable. | Wall used an improper, non-method-based reduction from whole to remainder. | Wall’s testimony excluded; no abuse of discretion on admissibility |
| Admission of Crestview appraisal expert and lost profits | Archibald’s lost-profits approach informs market-value impact of the taking. | Lost profits are not recoverable as a separate damage in condemnation. | Lost profits allowed only as market-value impact; Archibald’s testimony admissible; no reversible error on owner’s testimony |
| Admissibility of owner’s testimony | Owner’s lay opinion as to market value is admissible. | Owner lacks qualification; must be an appraiser or provide market data. | Owner testimony admissible; not an abuse of discretion |
| Unsafe condition and cost to cure (storage tanks) | Costs to cure unsafe conditions caused by the taking are recoverable damages to the remainder. | Evidence amounts to inverse condemnation or speculative risk; not recoverable damages. | Not inverse condemnation; evidence admissible; denial of impairment-of-access finding upheld on remand |
| Prejudgment interest and costs | Prejudgment interest properly included; costs including deposition costs allowed. | Questioned calculation and inclusion of deposition costs; some aspects improperly awarded. | Reversed as to prejudgment interest on impaired-access damages and remanded for recalculation; deposition costs properly includable |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Cent. Expressway Sign Assocs., 302 S.W.3d 866 (Tex. 2009) (damages in partial takings; market-value approach and damages to remainder)
- Interstate Northborough P’ship v. State, 66 S.W.3d 213 (Tex. 2001) (two methods for measuring damages; cost-to-cure evidence; unsafe conditions)
- Kennedy v. City of Dallas, 201 S.W.2d 840 (Tex. Civ. App.-Dallas 1947) (landowner not required to plead damages fixed by statute in condemnation)
- Kiel, 227 S.W.2d 825 (Tex. Civ. App.-Fort Worth 1950) (damages measure and pleading in condemnation cases)
- City of Austin v. Ave. Corp., 704 S.W.2d 11 (Tex. 1986) (injury to business admissible only as affecting market value, not as standalone damage)
- Whataburger, Inc., 60 S.W.3d 256 (Tex. App.-Houston [14th Dist.] 2001) (distinguishes temporary denial of access based on demolition/reconstruction context)