Kansas City Mall Associates, Inc. v. Unified Government of Wyandotte County
272 P.3d 600
| Kan. | 2012Background
- KC Mall sought review of a district court award of $6.95 million for eminent domain on the 57.38-acre Indian Springs/ Park West propertytaking June 20, 2007.
- KC Mall moved to exclude 2005 Kashani tax appeal documents; the district court admitted them as substantive and impeachment evidence per Sealpak.
- Kashani testified the property value was $30–$35 million on cross-exam, while 2005 tax appeal values were about $2.65 million total for four parcels.
- Unified Government presented two expert appraisers (Marx and Nunnick) using highest-and-best-use and multiple valuation methods; KC Mall presented competing experts.
- Trial included Kashani’s 2005 tax appeal admissions, and the district court allowed use of those figures to challenge Kashani’s valuation.
- The jury returned a verdict of $6.95 million, and KC Mall challenged evidentiary rulings on Kashani’s tax appeal and on appraisal methods.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admission of Kashani tax-appeal values as evidence | Kashani's tax appeal was to enforce abatement; values are not admissible prior inconsistent statements. | Sealpak permits admissions against interest; tax-appeal statements are admissible substantively and for impeachment. | Admission upheld; Kashani's tax-appeal statements admissible as substantive and impeachment evidence. |
| Unit rule application to tax-appeal parcel values | Tax-appeal values for individual parcels violate the unit rule if added separately. | Use of the four parcel values to rebut Kashani’s $30–$35 million claim did not violate the unit rule. | No unit-rule violation; evidence properly used to challenge overall value. |
| Admissibility of Unified Government’s appraisers' reports and use of mall comparables | Experts compared to retail malls inconsistent with zoning and best use; data should reflect business-park context. | Property had not materially changed since mall era; rezoning considerations fall within admissible factors. | Admissible; zoning is a factor among permissible highest-and-best-use determinations; expert methods allowed. |
| Zoning vs. highest and best use in eminent-domain valuation | Zoning as business park at taketime dictates value; use data should reflect current zoning. | Smith allows considering possible rezonings and future uses; zoning is only one factor among 26-513(d). | Correct to admit expert testimony; rezoning probability may be considered as part of highest-and-best-use analysis. |
Key Cases Cited
- Sealpak Co. v. City of Wichita, 279 Kan. 799 (2005) (admissions by owner in tax appeals admissible; reconciles prior rules on tax evidence)
- Mettee v. Urban Renewal Agency, 213 Kan. 787 (1974) (tax valuations generally not admissible to prove property value)
- Creason v. Unified Gov. Wyandotte County, 272 Kan. 482 (2001) (unit rule; value cannot be split by components, but separate evidence may show how value is enhanced)
- Love v. Common School District, 192 Kan. 780 (1964) (tax valuations and admissibility considerations in eminent-domain context)
- Avery v. City of Lyons, 181 Kan. 670 (1957) (admission of owner-provided valuation evidence in eminent-domain proceedings)
- Board of Johnson County Comm'rs v. Smith, 280 Kan. 588 (2005) (zoning not determinative of value; considers multiple factors for highest and best use)
- City of Wichita v. Eisenring, 269 Kan. 767 (2000) (three valuation methods; all methods stand on equal footing after 1999 amendment)
- City of Manhattan v. Kent, 228 Kan. 513 (1980) (summation vs. unit-rule distinction in evidence of value)
- St. v. Magallanez, Magallanez citation not provided (2010) (materiality and probative value considerations in appraisal testimony)
- City of Wichita v. Sealpak Co., supra (2005) (see Sealpak for admissions and admissibility framework)