Sabal Trail Transmission, LLC v. 3.921 Acres of Land in Lake County Florida
947 F.3d 1362
11th Cir.2020Background
- Sabal Trail, authorized by FERC under the Natural Gas Act, sought permanent and temporary easements to install a natural gas pipeline across a 40-acre parcel owned by Sunderman Groves in Lake County, Florida; Sunderman Groves refused to sell and Sabal Trail instituted condemnation under 15 U.S.C. § 717f(h).
- Sunderman Groves stipulated Sabal Trail’s right to take the easements; the sole issue for trial was just compensation (permanent easement, temporary easement, and severance damages to the remainder).
- Competing appraisals: Sabal Trail’s expert (Parham) valued total compensation at $56,800; Sunderman Groves’s expert (Ray) at $315,039. Jan Sunderman (co-owner) also testified as a lay witness that the pipeline would severely reduce the parcel’s marketability/value based on her experience selling ~25 similar rural lots.
- The four-day jury trial returned $309,500 total: $17,500 permanent easement, $10,000 temporary easement, and $282,000 severance damages.
- The district court entered final judgment awarding $309,500 and ruled Sunderman Groves was entitled to recover attorney’s fees and costs, leaving the fee amount for later determination.
- Sabal Trail appealed, arguing (1) Jan Sunderman’s lay testimony about post-taking value was speculative and should have been excluded (seeking a new trial), and (2) the court erred in allowing recovery of attorney’s fees and costs under the NGA.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether lay owner testimony (Jan Sunderman) about post-taking value was admissible | Sunderman’s opinion was speculative and lacked personal knowledge about sales of land encumbered by pipelines; should be excluded | Owner testimony is permissible under Rule 701 and based on her personal experience selling 25 similar lots; her opinion was grounded, not speculative | No abuse of discretion: owner competency to value property and her testimony rested on personal knowledge and experience; admissible |
| Whether appellate court has jurisdiction to review district court’s ruling that Sunderman Groves is entitled to attorney’s fees and costs | Appeal that liability for fees is reviewable now along with final judgment | District court has not set fee amount; no final decision on fees; appeal premature | Dismissed for lack of jurisdiction: fee entitlement not finally adjudicated and pendent appellate jurisdiction inapplicable here |
Key Cases Cited
- Williams v. Mosaic Fertilizer, LLC, 889 F.3d 1239 (11th Cir. 2018) (homeowner valuation testimony may be excluded if speculative and unsupported)
- Neff v. Kehoe, 708 F.2d 639 (11th Cir. 1983) (property owner generally competent to testify regarding value)
- Ray Haluch Gravel Co. v. Cent. Pension Fund of Int’l Union of Operating Eng’rs & Participating Emp’rs, 571 U.S. 177 (2014) (definition of a final decision for § 1291 appeals)
- Budinich v. Becton Dickinson & Co., 486 U.S. 196 (1988) (timeliness of appeals is jurisdictional; explained limits on appellate review tied to finality)
- Morillo-Cedron v. Dist. Dir. for the U.S. Citizenship & Immig. Servs., 452 F.3d 1254 (11th Cir. 2006) (no final appealable order on fees where amount remains to be set)
- Carbone v. Cable News Network, Inc., 910 F.3d 1345 (11th Cir. 2018) (standards for exercising pendent appellate jurisdiction)
- Andrews v. Employees’ Retirement Plan of First Alabama Bancshares, Inc., 938 F.2d 1245 (11th Cir. 1991) (pendent appellate jurisdiction appropriate when issues overlap)
- Tenn. Gas Pipeline Co., LLC v. Permanent Easement for 7.053 Acres, 931 F.3d 237 (3d Cir. 2019) (illustrative treatment of whether state or federal law governs NGA condemnation compensation)