56 A.3d 1170
D.C.2012Background
- Ms. Greene owned approximately 8.5 acres in the Skyland area; a portion (7 acres) was condemned for redevelopment.
- The untaken 1.5 acres remained but was undeveloped and wooded; Greene sought just compensation.
- District offered to purchase 7 acres for $943,000; Greene declined.
- Nelson Architects prepared a supposed high-density plan (400-unit condo + 24 single-family homes) for development of the total parcel; plan was developed for litigation, not built.
- Expert appraisals disagreed: District’s Lennhoff valued taken land at $1,850,000; Greene’s Duffy valued total holdings at $9,561,000; jury adopted Lennhoff’s figure.
- Trial court repeatedly ruled on severance damages and admissibility of comparables; ultimately, the jury verdict was entered for the District; Greene appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether severance damages may be awarded when unity of use is reasonably foreseeable. | Greene argues unity of use should be found for severance damages. | District argues unity of use is a matter of law and severance damages should be precluded. | Severance damages not available as a matter of law; no reasonable unity of use shown. |
| Whether the trial court properly gatekept expert testimony on valuation. | Greene contends court abused discretion by restricting comparables and methods. | District contends the court appropriately limited testimony to reliable comparables. | Trial court did not abuse discretion; limits were appropriate and did not affect outcome. |
| Whether the reasonably foreseeable use standard governs unity of use for severance damages. | Greene supports reasonably foreseeable use as the standard. | District relies on traditional or law-based unity considerations. | Reasonably foreseeable use governs, but no fact support for unity in this case. |
| Whether the Nelson concept plan created a legally cognizable unity of use. | Greene argues Nelson plan shows future unity of use. | Plan was drafted for litigation, not feasible, not a near-term unity. | Nelson plan not establish unity of use; not reasonably foreseeable. |
Key Cases Cited
- Bauman v. Ross, 167 U.S. 548 (1897) (just compensation depends on value actually deprived)
- Sharp v. United States, 191 U.S. 341 (1903) (unity of use requires analysis of integration with facts)
- United States v. 105.40 Acres of Land, 471 F.2d 207 (7th Cir.1972) (unity of use not always legal; depends on context)
- United States v. Petty Motor Co., 327 U.S. 372 (1946) (market value principle; value of taken interest only)
- United States v. Certain Parcel of Land in Detroit, 450 F.3d 205 (6th Cir.2006) (discussion of unity of use standards in modern context)