832 S.E.2d 1
Va.2019Background
- Helmick Family Farm (168 acres, zoned A-1 agricultural) had 2.155 acres taken plus several easements for a VDOT diamond interchange; commissioners awarded $22,592; landowner sought much higher valuation based on presumed commercial rezoning potential.
- No rezoning application or site plans were pending at the date of taking; part of the parcel was designated "Commercial" on Culpeper County’s Comprehensive Plan/Future Land Use Map (nonbinding), and the property had road frontage and access to sewer/water.
- Helmick proffered expert testimony (Charles Carter, former county planner) that rezoning to Light Industry was reasonably probable and an appraiser (Charles Dennis) who used commercial/industrial comparables discounted for rezoning risk to calculate value.
- The Commissioner’s appraiser valued the land as agricultural using agricultural comparables (~$22,464). The trial court granted the Commissioner’s motion in limine excluding evidence of a hypothetical rezoning and excluded Dennis’s comparable-sale-based methodology and certain documentary exhibits.
- The jury was instructed to consider only uses permissible under existing A-1 zoning (Instruction 7) and given a limiting instruction about the nonbinding, advisory nature of the Comprehensive Plan (Instruction 8); Helmick objected and appealed after adverse award.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admissibility of evidence that a rezoning was reasonably probable | Helmick: reasonable probability of rezoning is relevant to fair market value and should be admissible | Commissioner: such evidence is speculative/remote because rezoning depends on third parties and no application was pending | Held: Evidence of a reasonable probability of rezoning is admissible when supported by concrete facts; trial court erred excluding it |
| Whether trial court should have made a preliminary judicial determination before excluding rezoning evidence | Helmick: court should admit jury question where owner presents sufficient evidence of reasonable probability | Commissioner: owner failed to meet burden; exclusion proper as matter of law | Held: Court must preliminarily decide sufficiency; here owner presented enough facts to create a jury issue, so exclusion was error |
| Admissibility of comparable-sales-based appraisal using commercially zoned comparables discounted for rezoning risk | Helmick: Dennis’s approach is proper—zoning differentials go to weight; discounting is acceptable methodology | Commissioner: differences in zoning render those comparables inadmissible | Held: Excluding Dennis’s methodology and comparables was error; comparability and zoning differences go to weight for the factfinder |
| Admissibility of landowner’s lay testimony and supporting documents for his value opinion | Helmick: Melvin Helmick should explain basis and introduce deeds, county sewer letter | Commissioner: court properly limited documentary support; owner not an expert appraiser | Held: Owner may testify as lay valuator and explain basis, but trial court did not abuse discretion in limiting documentary exhibits here given Helmick was not offered as expert |
Key Cases Cited
- Lynch v. Commonwealth Transp. Comm’r, 247 Va. 388 (Va. 1994) (fair market value may reflect pending rezoning where rezoning probability is established)
- Tuckahoe Woman’s Club v. City of Richmond, 199 Va. 734 (Va. 1958) (definition of fair market value)
- Appalachian Elec. Power Co. v. Gorman, 191 Va. 344 (Va. 1950) (consider all factors affecting market value)
- Revocor Corp. v. Commonwealth Transp. Comm’r, 259 Va. 389 (Va. 2000) (distinguishing admissible non-speculative future acts from speculative contingencies)
- Wammco, Inc. v. Commonwealth Transp. Comm’r, 251 Va. 132 (Va. 1996) (exclude damages based on speculative third-party acts)
- Commonwealth Transp. Comm’r v. Glass, 270 Va. 138 (Va. 2005) (rejecting fabricated unity-of-use claims based on speculative development plans)
- City of Virginia Beach v. Oakes, 263 Va. 510 (Va. 2002) (exclude speculative damage evidence premised on hypothetical building requiring approvals)
- Edwards v. State Highway Comm’r, 205 Va. 734 (Va. 1965) (admissibility of comparable sales is largely within trial court discretion)
- Appalachian Power Co. v. Anderson, 212 Va. 705 (Va. 1971) (measure compensation by highest and best use reasonably expected in near future)