Evans v. Department of Transportation
331 Ga. App. 313
Ga. Ct. App.2015Background
- DOT condemned a 12.087-acre portion of undeveloped timberland containing a subterranean kaolin mineral deposit for a road construction project.
- The condemned property lies in Gordon, Georgia, within agricultural zoning where mining requires a special exception not previously granted.
- DOT maintained the highest and best use was timberland; condemnees argued kaolin substantially increased value and zoning should not affect valuation.
- During trial, DOT’s appraisers valued the property based on timberland use and ignored the kaolin deposit due to zoning restrictions; condemnees later offered minerals engineer and appraiser testimony valuing kaolin impact.
- The jury awarded $50,000; trial court denied condemnees’ in limine motion to exclude zoning evidence and instructed on zoning; the condemnation judgment was appealed on multiple zoning/valuation issues.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court erred denying limine to exclude zoning evidence | Evans argued zoning is irrelevant to mineral deposits in condemnation. | Gordon zoning can affect value; zoning should be considered. | No abuse; zoning may be considered. |
| Whether expert testimony on likelihood of zoning change was proper | Testimony was speculative and irrelevant to mineral deposits. | Testimony on probability of rezoning is admissible and not wholly speculative. | Not an abuse; testimony admissible; speculation goes to weight. |
| Whether jury charges on mineral deposits and zoning were conflicting or erroneous | Charges were inconsistent and mis-stated law. | Charges fully reflect law; read as a whole they are accurate. | Charges were accurate when read together; permissible analysis allowed both intrinsic value and possible mining under current or future zoning. |
Key Cases Cited
- Gunn v. Dept. of Transp., 222 Ga. App. 684 (1996) (mineral deposits have intrinsic value and may be considered in valuation)
- Sharpe v. Dept. of Transp., 219 Ga. App. 466 (1995) (mineral deposits considered in condemnation; zoning may be relevant)
- Dept. of Transp. v. Benton, 214 Ga. App. 221 (1994) ( Benton analysis not applicable to mineral deposits; focus on probability of future use)
- Watson, Unified Government of Athens-Clarke County v., 276 Ga. 276 (2003) (evidence on zoning changes admissible if probability affects value)
- Jordan, Dept. of Transp., 300 Ga. App. 104 (2009) (charge on zoning in condemnation: consider present zoning and near-future probable changes)
- Sconyers, Dept. of Transp., 151 Ga. App. 824 (1979) (zoning change admissible considerations in condemnation if not too remote or speculative)
- Layfield v. Dept. of Transp., 280 Ga. 848 (2006) (an expert may rely on inadmissible data if reasonably relied upon by experts; weight vs admissibility)