Reid Road Municipal Utility District No. 2 v. Speedy Stop Food Stores, Ltd.
337 S.W.3d 846
| Tex. | 2011Background
- Speedy Stop Food Stores, Ltd. is a Texas limited partnership; Reid Road MUD sought to condemn a waterline easement across Speedy Stop property.
- Speedy Stop did not attend the special commissioners' hearing; Ambrose’s appraisal valued damages at $9,342 for the taking.
- LaBeff, vice president of Speedy Stop's corporate general partner, C.L. Thomas, Inc., filed an affidavit claiming knowledge of real estate values but did not show personal familiarity with the Property.
- Trial court excluded LaBeff’s affidavit and Ambrose’s appraisal/testimony; it granted summary judgment to the District.
- Court of Appeals reversed, holding the Property Owner Rule applied to corporate entities; the Supreme Court granted review.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the Property Owner Rule applies to a corporate general partner’s testimony | LaBeff qualifies as owner-like witness under Property Owner Rule | Corporate employees cannot be treated as owners; LaBeff isn’t Speedy Stop employee | No for LaBeff’s affidavit under the Property Owner Rule |
| Whether LaBeff’s Rule 701 testimony was admissible | Rule 701 allows lay testimony by knowledgeable individuals | LaBeff’s opinion was expert-level and undisclosed | Excluded under Rule 701 |
| Whether Ambrose’s appraisal/testimony were admissible as admissions | Ambrose’s evidence was an admission by the District | Ambrose not an agent; testimony hearsay | Admissible as adoptive admissions under Rule 801(e)(2)(B) |
| What is the ultimate resolve regarding the damages evidence | LaBeff’s affidavit supports damages claim; Ambrose supports damages as admissions | Damages must be excluded due to lack of proper evidence | Remand; excluding LaBeff but admitting Ambrose’s appraisal testimony |
Key Cases Cited
- Porras v. Craig, 675 S.W.2d 503 (Tex. 1984) (owner familiar with property presumed to know its value)
- Mobil Oil Corp. v. City of Wichita Falls, 489 S.W.2d 148 (Tex.Civ.App.-Fort Worth 1972) (designated corporate agent testimony on value subject to expert rules)
- Bay Area Healthcare Grp., Ltd. v. McShane, 239 S.W.3d 231 (Tex. 2007) (party-opponent admissions admissible; no need to designate as expert)
- Yarbrough's Dirt Pit, Inc. v. Turner, 65 S.W.3d 210 (Tex.App.-Beaumont 2001) (expert's deposition can support summary judgment against party-opponent)