Metropolitan Development And Housing Agency v. Nashville Downtown Platinum, LLC
M2017-00450-COA-R3-CV
| Tenn. Ct. App. | Dec 8, 2017Background
- In 2007 Nashville Downtown Platinum, LLC (Platinum) bought a downtown Nashville surface parking lot for $1.4M and contemplated building a hotel; the plans never materialized.
- On Jan. 29, 2010 the Metropolitan Development and Housing Agency (MDHA) took the property by condemnation for the Music City Center project; MDHA deposited $1,774,300 as estimated just compensation but reserved Platinum’s right to seek additional compensation.
- At the time of taking the property was zoned CF (≈7-story limit); a rezoning to DTC (allowing 30+ stories) was widely known and became final Feb. 2, 2010.
- A jury of view initially awarded $2,306,590; Platinum sought a de novo jury trial under Tenn. Code Ann. §29-16-118 and at trial a jury returned a verdict of $2,032,380 (≈$63/sf), which the trial court entered and later denied a new trial.
- Platinum appealed, raising evidentiary objections (limits on cross-examination, exclusion of demonstrative exhibits and post-taking evidence, admission of prior testimony), a claim that the verdict lacked material evidence and constitutional challenges to Tennessee’s valuation method; MDHA was awarded discretionary costs.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Trial court limited cross-examination of MDHA appraiser about post-taking trends | Platinum: cross-exam should have probed post-taking trends showing improving market; would affect valuation | MDHA: Platinum did not preserve or offer proof of excluded testimony; limits were proper | No reversible error — record shows no offer of proof and court gave some leeway; issue waived/unsupported |
| Exclusion of hotel expert testimony about post-taking market trends | Platinum: Freitag should testify about early/mid‑2010 hotel market to show trend started pre‑taking | MDHA: testimony about post‑taking events was improper; no offer of proof made | Waived — no offer of proof; appellant failed to preserve error |
| Exclusion of architect’s demonstrative drawings (40+ story towers) | Platinum: drawings show highest and best use under imminent DTC zoning | MDHA: drawings speculative, not shown to be engineering/financially feasible; over‑emphasize a use | No abuse of discretion — architect not competent to prove feasibility and Platinum’s own appraiser used 20‑story hotel as highest/best use |
| Restricting Platinum’s appraiser from relying on comparables/Tower case materials | Platinum: Poe could verify comps by reference to comparables used in Tower; Tower supports higher $/sf | MDHA: introducing Tower verdict/opinion would be prejudicial and improper | No error — offer of proof attempted to introduce Tower opinion and verdict; trial court properly excluded it as prejudicial |
| Admission of MDHA’s post‑taking (2012) sale evidence and rebuttal opportunity | Platinum: MDHA introduced 2012 sale; Platinum wasn’t given fair time/opportunity to rebut | MDHA: Platinum consented to line of questioning at trial and failed to present promised rebuttal; any objection waived | No reversible error — Platinum did not object contemporaneously or preserve timing complaint; court allowed rebuttal opportunity Platinum did not use |
| Reading prior jury-of-view testimony (Rule 804(b)(1)) | Platinum: former testimony should be excluded because motive to cross-examine in prior proceeding differed (de novo jury right) | MDHA: prior testimony admissible; Platinum had opportunity and similar motive to develop testimony at the jury-of-view | Admissible — witness found unavailable, and Platinum had opportunity and a similar motive to cross-examine at the earlier proceeding |
| Trial court’s role as thirteenth juror / sufficiency of evidence | Platinum: court failed to properly act as thirteenth juror and verdict lacks material evidence | MDHA: trial court independently weighed evidence and approved verdict; multiple comparables support verdict | Affirmed — trial court stated it was satisfied after independent review; material evidence supports $63/sf verdict |
| Constitutional challenge to Tennessee valuation method | Platinum: calculation method raises federal/state constitutional concerns | MDHA: issues not raised below and therefore waived | Waived — constitutional argument not preserved in trial court or motion for new trial |
| Award of discretionary costs to MDHA | Platinum: award improper or trial court failed to analyze necessity/reasonableness | MDHA: award within trial court’s discretion; filings supported reasonableness | No abuse of discretion — trial court considered filings, arguments, and record and implicitly found costs reasonable |
Key Cases Cited
- Crabtree Masonry Co., Inc. v. C & R Constr., Inc., 575 S.W.2d 4 (Tenn. 1978) (appellate review of jury verdicts limited to whether material evidence supports the verdict)
- Newcomb v. Kohler Co., 222 S.W.3d 368 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2006) (admissibility of evidence is within trial court’s discretion; reviewed for abuse of discretion)
- Dickey v. McCord, 63 S.W.3d 714 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2001) (trial court’s duty as thirteenth juror: independently weigh evidence and approve if satisfied)
- Singh v. Larry Fowler Trucking, Inc., 390 S.W.3d 280 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2012) (offer of proof required to preserve and review exclusion of evidence)
- Nashville Hous. Auth. v. Cohen, 541 S.W.2d 947 (Tenn. 1976) (just compensation measured by fair cash market value on date of taking)