Manhattan Ice & Cold Storage, Inc. v. City of Manhattan
274 P.3d 609
| Kan. | 2012Background
- Manhattan Ice appealed a $3,515,043 eminent domain judgment for taking three tracts used for unimproved land, Rainbo Bread, and Manhattan Meats plant.
- City conducted pretrial discovery, deposees included landowner president Saroff and appraisers Heavey and Larva; Heavey valued replacement cost with $7.9M for Manhattan Meats portion.
- City moved to exclude various testimony, including Heavey, Larva, Bramhall, Saroff on certain topics; the district court issued a complex in limine order.
- Trial featured Saroff as landowner witness attempting to present replacement-cost components; Heavey and Larva not called live; Bramhall's refrigeration cost proposal was excluded as too remote in time.
- Jury was instructed on fair market value methods (comparable sales, replacement cost, income capitalization) and best/adaptable uses; landowner sought special-use jury instructions which were denied.
- Jury returned a verdict of $3,515,043 in favor of landowner, upholding the district court judgment.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether exclusion of certain witnesses and testimonies prejudiced landowner | Saroff could rely on hearsay-based inputs from Heavey/Larva to value land. | Heavey/Larva foundations were improperly used; some testimony was too remote or cumulative; exclusion was proper. | No reversible error; limited impact with correct result. |
| Whether Saroff could testify as to replacement-cost components without expert testimony | Landowner could present a lay valuation based on supplied data from appraisers. | A landowner cannot form replacement-cost calculations without expert basis. | Court allowed Saroff to offer his own value but rejected reliance on nonqualifying basis; error not shown. |
| Whether Larva deposition could substitute for live testimony to support replacement-cost | Larva's deposition should be admissible under 60-460(c) and 60-232(a)(3)(B) as substitute evidence. | Larva lacked personal knowledge and the deposition would be inadmissible for probative value. | Deposition properly excluded; not admissible for probative value. |
| Whether Heavey testimony was improperly restricted | Heavey should be allowed to testify on replacement-cost components and depreciation. | Restrictions were proper; landowner failed to call Heavey live and thus waived or limited impact. | No reversible error; Heavey testimony not improperly restricted. |
| Whether the trial court properly declined PIK special-use instructions | Special-use instructions were required to reflect meat-processing plant as a unique use. | Under 26-513(e) all three methods are equal; special-use instructions were unnecessary. | Instructions were correct; no error in declining 131.08/131.09. |
Key Cases Cited
- City of Wichita v. Eisenring, 269 Kan. 767 (2000) (recognizes three valuation methods; all on equal footing)
- City of Wichita v. Eisenring, 269 Kan. 774 (2000) (discussion of admissibility and expert testimony in eminent domain)
- Miller v. Bartle, 283 Kan. 108 (2007) (eminent domain determination focused on fair market value; jury verdict guidance)
- Mooney v. City of Overland Park, 283 Kan. 617 (2007) (evidentiary discretion; lay vs. expert testimony; invited error principle)
- Shadden v. State, 290 Kan. 803 (2010) (multistep analysis for motions in limine and evidentiary relevance)