Pope v. Overton
2011 Ark. 11
| Ark. | 2011Background
- Popes bought 31.5 acres in Hot Spring County, AR in 2004 for investment and recreation.
- In 2007 the property was listed for sale at $159,000, later reduced to $129,000.
- Overton, a neighbor, asked Entergy to extend electric service; a right-of-way easement was sought but not obtained from the Popes.
- Entergy and Overton proceeded with a route across the Popes’ property; Overton hired a contractor to clear the land.
- Popes sued Entergy and Overton; circuit court granted Entergy’s directed verdict; Overton’s directed verdict on the conversion claim was granted with damages set at $188.95, trebled; trespass claim was submitted to a jury and then dismissed with prejudice.
- Rule 68 costs were awarded to Overton; Popes appealed; the court affirmed in part and reversed in part.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Damages measure in inverse condemnation | Popes argue wrong damages standard was used | Entergy contends there was no substantial evidence of value before/after taking | Directed verdict proper; correct measure is value of land taken plus damages to remainder, but substantial evidence lacking |
| Damages for trees in conversion claim | Popes contend timber damages beyond value of timber taken | Overton argues only timber value is recoverable | Conversion damages limited to timber value; $188.95 found credible; directed verdict upheld |
| Trespass damages instruction | Failure to instruct on trespass damages prejudices Popes | Jury found no trespass, so instruction error harmless | No reversible error; trespass instruction not required given verdict |
| Rule 68 costs for unallocated joint offer | Rule 68 cannot apply to unallocated joint offers | Costs awarded under Rule 68 to Overton | Rule 68 does not apply to unallocated joint offer; costs reversed. |
Key Cases Cited
- One (1) Nat’l Bank v. Pope, 372 Ark. 208 (2008) (standard for directed verdict; substantial evidence)
- DeBoer v. Entergy Arkansas, Inc., 109 S.W.3d 142 (2003) (inverse condemnation; damages measure; utility taking)
- Arkansas La. Gas Co. v. Howell, 423 S.W.2d 867 (1968) (measure of just compensation for eminent domain)
- Arkansas La. Gas Co. v. James, 692 S.W.2d 761 (1985) (measures of damages in condemnation contexts)
- Property Owners Improvement Dist. v. Williford, 843 S.W.2d 862 (1992) (before/after valuation; timber/tree damages)
- Thompson v. City of Siloam Springs, 969 S.W.2d 639 (1998) (general condemnation damage principles)
- White River Rural Water Dist. v. Moon, 839 S.W.2d 211 (1992) (damages for ornamental/shade trees; replacement value)
- First Elec. Coop. Corp. v. Charette, 810 S.W.2d 500 (1991) (damages for trees; valuation principles)
- Revels v. Knighton, 805 S.W.2d 649 (1991) (timber/tree damages guidance)
- Worthington v. Roberts, 803 S.W.2d 906 (1991) (damages theories for trees)
- Fleece v. Kankey, 72 S.W.3d 879 (2002) (statutory trespass damages guidance)
- Bowman v. McFarlin, 615 S.W.2d 383 (1981) (trial instructions on damages)