Enbridge G & P (East Texas) L.P. v. Ben Samford and Wife Bette Ann Samford, Cecil Jackson and Wife Michelle Jackson and Sammy Monk
2015 Tex. App. LEXIS 8062
Tex. App.2015Background
- Enbridge sought pipeline and temporary easements across three rural tracts owned by Samford, Jackson, and Monk; the three condemnation actions were consolidated for trial.
- Disputed issues were the market value of the part taken (pipeline easement) and diminution in value of the remainders. Each side presented one appraiser (Lyon for landowners; Harris for Enbridge); both used conventional before-and-after/comparable-sales approaches.
- Landowners also offered Wesley Hoyt, who rejected market-value before-and-after methodology and testified that industry practice yields a flat per-rod payment (he opined $850/rod) covering easement and remainder damages; he produced no comparable sales or data.
- Enbridge objected pretrial and at trial to Hoyt’s report and testimony as unreliable and irrelevant under Tex. R. Evid. 702 and contrary to the required before-and-after measure of compensation; the trial court admitted Hoyt’s testimony.
- Jury awarded amounts consistent with Hoyt’s per-rod approach for the easement values and also separately awarded per-acre remainder damages, indicating the jury relied on Hoyt yet still made separate remainder awards.
- The court of appeals reversed and remanded, holding the trial court abused its discretion in admitting Hoyt’s testimony because his per-rod methodology was neither relevant nor reliable for a partial-taking condemnation case and likely caused an improper judgment.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admissibility of Wesley Hoyt’s per-rod valuation testimony | Hoyt’s industry experience and per-rod practice reflect actual market transactions and are relevant to just compensation | Hoyt’s method rejects the required before-and-after fair-market-value measure, lacks comparable-data support, and is unreliable under Rule 702 | Excluded: court abused discretion by admitting Hoyt; his method was irrelevant/unreliable and testimony likely caused improper judgment (reversible error) |
| Proper measure/charge for valuation (before-and-after vs. per-rod) | Per-rod reflects real-world settlements and should be presented to jury | Law requires valuation of part taken and remainder by before-and-after fair market value; per-rod conflates elements and can double-count damages | Held that compensation must be determined by before-and-after market-value analysis; per-rod approach is inapt for partial takings |
| Jury confusion / double recovery risk from combined per-rod testimony and separate remainder question | Landowners argued jury could consider all evidence | Enbridge argued Hoyt’s combined per-rod testimony prevented jurors from properly assessing separate issues, causing double recovery | Court found jury was confused and did award duplicative damages; this showed Hoyt’s testimony prejudiced outcome |
| Admission of other testimony (e.g., Smelser cost estimates) | Landowners offered cost-to-repair evidence to prove consequences to remainder | Enbridge argued some testimony lacked valuation basis or should not stand in for before-and-after market-value proof | Court did not reach these issues on appeal because Hoyt ruling resolved case; remanded for new trial where admissibility can be revisited |
Key Cases Cited
- Gammill v. Jack Williams Chevrolet, Inc., 972 S.W.2d 713 (Tex. 1998) (trial court gatekeeping responsibility for expert reliability and relevance)
- Zwahr v. Exxon Pipeline Co., 88 S.W.3d 623 (Tex. 2002) (just compensation in partial takings measured by market value; before-and-after rule)
- City of Fort Worth v. Corbin, 504 S.W.2d 828 (Tex. 1973) (exclude fact of condemnation; market value must be as if no condemnation)
- State v. Carpenter, 89 S.W.2d 194 (Tex. 1936) (require separate assessment of part taken and remainder; prevent confounding elements of damage)