787 S.E.2d 904
W. Va.2016Background
- Kanawha County Commission (member of regional airport authority) condemned a one-third undivided interest in a 10-acre tract (the "Nutter Farm") to use as the fill/disposal site for material removed in an FAA‑requested runway obstruction removal project at Yeager Airport.
- Petitioner Loretta Gomez inherited a one‑third interest; her two brothers sold theirs to a developer, who later sold those interests to the Commission; Gomez refused to sell and objected to condemnation.
- Condemnation commissioners valued Gomez’s one‑third share at $33,335; Gomez timely objected and demanded a jury trial; the Commission paid the commissioners’ award into court and obtained immediate possession.
- After discovery, the circuit court: excluded Gomez’s appraisal expert, struck Gomez’s "claims" for missing her deposition, took judicial notice of the commissioners’ valuation, and granted the Commission summary judgment.
- Gomez appealed, arguing error as to (1) public‑use determination and denial of jury on that issue, (2) exclusion of project‑related valuation under the project influence rule, (3) striking her expert, (4) striking her claims for missing deposition, (5) judicial notice of the commissioners’ valuation, and (6) entry of summary judgment denying her right to testify to value.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether taking was for a "public use" | Gomez: question of fact for a jury; Commission was only temporarily using land as a dump | Commission: taking serves public airport purposes; question is legal for the court | Court: public‑use is a question of law; taking for airport purposes is a public use; no bad faith shown — court decision affirmed |
| Whether valuation may include value created by the Commission’s project (project influence) | Gomez: property’s highest and best use at date of taking was as a paid dump site; enhanced value should be included | Commission: project‑created enhancement is speculative and must be excluded under project influence rule | Court: affirmed exclusion — any increase/decrease attributable to the condemning project is disregarded for market value |
| Exclusion/striking of Gomez’s appraisal expert | Gomez: expert needed more time to value property including post‑taking condition | Commission: expert provided no admissible fair‑market opinion and intended to rely on project enhancement; late disclosure prejudicial | Court: affirmed — trial court did not abuse discretion in striking expert for discovery violation and inadmissible theory |
| Sanction of striking Gomez’s "claims" for missing deposition | Gomez: sanction improper; court failed to find willfulness or weigh lesser sanctions (per Cattrell) | Commission: prejudice from missed deposition warranted sanction | Court: reversed — trial court failed to make required findings and consider less drastic sanctions; sanction was improper |
| Judicial notice of condemnation commissioners’ valuation after objection and jury demand | Gomez: taking judicial notice denied right to jury on compensation; commissioners’ report is not indisputable adjudicative fact after objection | Commission: commissioners’ report is an adjudicative fact entitled to judicial notice | Court: reversed — because Gomez timely objected and demanded a jury, court erred in taking judicial notice of commissioners’ valuation |
| Grant of summary judgment to Commission | Gomez: has right to testify as owner to fair market value; genuine factual issue exists (owner testimony, comparable sales) | Commission: no admissible valuation evidence from Gomez; commissioners’ valuation should be used | Court: reversed — summary judgment improper; owner may testify to value and factual issues remain for jury |
Key Cases Cited
- Hench v. Pritt, 62 W. Va. 270 (public‑use is a question of law)
- W. Va. Dep’t of Transp. v. Western Pocahontas Props., L.P., 236 W. Va. 50 (measure of just compensation = fair market value; guidance on market factors)
- Chesapeake & Ohio R.R. Co. v. Tyree, 7 W. Va. 693 (enhancement from proposed public project is speculative and excluded)
- Cattrell Companies, Inc. v. Carlton, Inc., 217 W. Va. 1 (sanctions for failure to appear at deposition require finding of willfulness/bad faith and analysis of lesser sanctions)
- United States v. Cors, 337 U.S. 325 (project influence principle: government demand‑created enhancement is not part of fair market value)