Lenawee County v. Wagley
301 Mich. App. 134
| Mich. Ct. App. | 2013Background
- The county condemned an avigation easement over the Wagleys’ residence to comply with FAA RPZ requirements, filed in 2005 seeking just compensation.
- The FAA-approved plan moved the runway and widened it, increasing obstruction-clearance requirements within the RPZ, affecting the Wagleys’ property value.
- A jury awarded $470,000 as just compensation plus interest, costs, and fees; the county contested evidentiary rulings and posttrial damages but won on most issues.
- This Court’s prior Wagley I/II decisions held FAA approvals could support a partial taking (not necessarily a total taking) and narrowed FAA-evidence admissibility; law-of-the-case guidance limited use of FAA testimony predicated on prohibitions against residency in RPZ.
- The trial court awarded statutory interest on the just-compensation award but the court later vacated or modified various aspects, including an enhanced award if the county could take the remainder of the property.
- Legislation enacted after the complaint (MCL 213.23(5)) provides a 125% enhancement of just compensation for principal residences taken, prompting retroactivity questions on whether the enhancement applies to this case.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Law-of-the-case and evidentiary scope | Wagley I/II barred FAA-based total-taking arguments; improper to admit FAA-regulation testimony. | FAA materials and RPZ context are admissible to show utilization and safety considerations; law-of-the-case allows reference to FAA guidance within limits. | No reversible error; law-of-the-case restrictions respected; FAA references within trial context were permissible. |
| Whether the Wagleys grounded their claim on RPZ placement rather than diminution in value | Taking occurred when the property was placed in the RPZ; damages framed by RPZ location rather than easement effects. | Damages arise from the easement’s diminution of value, not solely RPZ placement; proper instruction and verdict form control. | Evidence supported diminution-of-value theory; instructions and verdict form appropriately framed the issue. |
| Admissibility of expert and Daubert-like challenges to McVeigh | Daubert hearing required for McVeigh’s realtor opinions on marketability and disclosures. | McVeigh’s testimony rested on experience, not science; no Daubert hearing required. | Court did not abuse discretion; McVeigh’s testimony properly admitted as experiential expert testimony. |
| Interest on just compensation under MCL 213.65 | Interest should accrue from the date of possession (Nov 21, 2007) due to de facto taking of airspace. | Interest only from possession of the entire property; no interim possession occurred; no interest. | Partial victory for Wagleys; trial court’s award of interest from 11/21/2007 was affirmed. |
| Retroactive application of 125% increase under MCL 213.23(5) | Retroactive application appropriate since entitlement arose from the taking and amendment occurred after filing. | Statute is remedial but should not apply retroactively due to vested rights and procedural timing; prospective only. | Statute not retroactively applied; remanded for correction consistent with opinion. |
Key Cases Cited
- Dep’t of Transp v Frankenlust Lutheran Congregation, 269 Mich App 570 (Mich. Ct. App. 2006) (UCPA goal of just compensation and remedial nature of declaration)
- Jorissen v. Department of Transportation, 146 Mich App 207 (Mich. Ct. App. 1985) (possession timing and interest accrual upon surrender order)
- State Hwy Comm v Great Lakes Express Co, 50 Mich App 170 (Mich. Ct. App. 1973) (taking of easement and loss of use supports interest accrual)
- Pichalski v Department of Transportation, 168 Mich App 712 (Mich. Ct. App. 1988) (partial takings and interest when portions are taken)
- Ballog v Knight Newspapers, Inc., 381 Mich 527 (Mich. 1969) (interest accrual on judgments generally; timing rules for condemnation)