RNW Family Partnership Ltd. v. Department of Transportation
307 Ga. App. 108
Ga. Ct. App.2010Background
- RNW Family Partnership owned a 198.13-acre tract in McDuffie County at the corner of Highway 78 and Highway 278 (Harrison Road/Augusta Highway).
- DOT filed a petition to condemn 13.022 acres of RNW’s tract plus easement and access rights for a limited access highway project.
- DOT deposited $72,200 into the court registry as just compensation; the trial court condemned the 13.022 acres.
- RNW demanded a jury trial and presented two appraisers; DOT presented one expert; verdict returned $109,130 to RNW.
- RNW challenged the verdict as legally and factually insufficient on multiple grounds, prompting appellate review.
- Key disputes included loss of access value, application of statutes, jury instructions, pro rata valuation, cost-to-cure effects, and opening statements.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Loss of access valuation | RNW asserts DOT failed to value 3,800+ feet of frontage and access loss. | Expert explained access along bypass was limited and frontage was reflected in valuation. | No error; loss of access adequately considered in evidence. |
| OCGA § 51-12-12 applicability | RNW argues damages award was so inadequate/excessive as to require a new trial on damages. | Verdict falls within competent, undisputed evidence; no basis for new trial. | No merit; jury award within proper range. |
| Requested jury charges on access rights | RNW asked charges on right of access as a compensable property right. | Trial court’s charge covered access concepts; requested charges not essential. | No reversible error; charges substantially covered by the court’s instructions. |
| Pro rata valuation method | RNW contends pro rata valuation ignores unique characteristics of the taken parcel. | Experts used pro rata approach with adequate explanations; value impact shown for remainder. | Pro rata method properly applied; no error. |
| Cost to cure as separate damage vs consequential damages | RNW argues cost-to-cure evidence should be recoverable as an independent damage item. | Steele v. DOT and related authorities permit cost to cure as factor in reduced value, not as separate damage. | Correctly instructed; cost to cure may influence value but not recoverable as separate item; waiver and non-harmful instruction noted. |
Key Cases Cited
- Department of Transportation v. Jordan, 300 Ga.App. 104, 684 S.E.2d 141 (2009) (acknowledges range of evidence for damages)
- Ga. Dept. of Transp. v. Miller, 300 Ga.App. 857, 686 S.E.2d 455 (2009) (jury instructions respect requested charges)
- Loggins v. Dept. of Transp., 264 Ga.App. 514, 591 S.E.2d 365 (2003) (pro rata valuation considerations)
- Dept. of Transp. v. Crowe, 299 Ga.App. 756, 683 S.E.2d 695 (2009) (cost to cure as a factor in reduced FMV of remainder)
- Ga. Dept. of Transp. v. Crumbley, 271 Ga.App. 706, 610 S.E.2d 663 (2005) (pro rata method discussion)