Nda Farms, L.L.C. and Connie J. Veasman v. City of Ames, Iowa Through the Ames Municipal Electric System
16-0028
| Iowa Ct. App. | Mar 8, 2017Background
- The City of Ames obtained eminent-domain authority to acquire a permanent 33-foot easement across three contiguous parcels (two owned by NDA Farms, one by Connie Veasman) to install electric transmission lines.
- The City offered $32,100 for NDA Farms (Parcels 2 & 3) and $12,600 for Veasman (Parcel 2A); those offers were rejected.
- A compensation commission awarded a combined ~$14,900 to the owners; the owners appealed to district court seeking at least $300,000.
- After a jury trial, the jury awarded $290,000 to NDA Farms and Veasman; the district court entered judgment and awarded fees/costs.
- The City appealed, challenging several evidentiary rulings (use of a prior valuation for impeachment, exclusion of a 1997 disciplinary consent order for plaintiffs’ expert, exclusion of tax-assessed values), the court’s refusal to give a speculative-damages instruction, and the sufficiency of evidence for the jury award.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admissibility of Ahlsten valuation for impeachment | Plaintiffs: may impeach City expert by showing he reviewed/approved prior valuation and possible bias | City: using the Ahlsten valuation (and commission award) to impeach was improper and prejudicial; commission award was excluded | Court: Allowed limited impeachment questioning about Ahlsten valuation but excluded commission award details; no reversible prejudice |
| Excluding prior disciplinary consent order re: plaintiffs’ expert (Olson) | Plaintiffs: consent order lacks admissions and is remote/nonprobative | City: disciplinary history bears on credibility and competence | Court: Exclusion proper; consent order contained no admission or detail and probative value was low |
| Excluding Polk County tax-assessed valuation | Plaintiffs: assessor value not reflective of market for residential development | City: assessed value supports City’s valuation | Court: Exclusion proper; assessed value used statutory agricultural formula and not relevant to fair market value for residential use |
| Jury instruction on speculative damages | Plaintiffs: existing instructions adequately required valuation based on before-and-after fair market value | City: needed explicit instruction to prevent speculative awards | Court: Refusal harmless; jury instructions read together implicitly barred speculation |
| Sufficiency of evidence / excessive verdict | Plaintiffs: experts supported plaintiffs’ valuation; jury credited plaintiffs’ expert | City: award excessive and unsupported | Court: Denied new trial; jury entitled to weigh conflicting expert testimony; $290,000 not wholly unfair or unreasonable |
Key Cases Cited
- Hall v. Jennie Edmundson Mem’l Hosp., 812 N.W.2d 681 (Iowa 2012) (standard of review for evidentiary rulings)
- Giza v. BNSF Ry. Co., 843 N.W.2d 713 (Iowa 2014) (abuse of discretion test for trial rulings)
- Whitley v. C.R. Pharmacy Serv., Inc., 816 N.W.2d 378 (Iowa 2012) (reversal only for prejudicial evidentiary error)
- Johnson v. Des Moines Metro. Wastewater Reclamation Auth., 814 N.W.2d 240 (Iowa 2012) (measure of damages in condemnation: before-and-after fair market value)
- Dolezai v. City of Cedar Rapids, 209 N.W.2d 84 (Iowa 1973) (consideration of highest and best use in valuation)
- Leaf v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co., 590 N.W.2d 525 (Iowa 1999) (jury instructions considered as a whole)
- Alcala v. Marriott Int’l, Inc., 880 N.W.2d 699 (Iowa 2016) (requirements for giving a requested jury instruction)
- Gorden v. Carey, 603 N.W.2d 588 (Iowa 1999) (new trial is proper method to challenge adequacy of damages)
- Fisher v. Davis, 601 N.W.2d 54 (Iowa 1999) (trial court discretion on new-trial motion for damages)
- Twin-State Eng’g & Chem. Co. v. Iowa State Highway Comm’n, 197 N.W.2d 575 (Iowa 1972) (deference to trier of fact on condemnation awards)