Savage v. American Transmission Co.
828 N.W.2d 244
Wis. Ct. App.2013Background
- ATC took a 20.32-foot Supplemental Easement across Savage's property to secure aerial rights for additional conductors, adjacent to a 19.68-foot easement.
- The Supplemental Easement prohibits Savage from placing structures, and from altering grade, within the easement area without ATC's consent.
- ATC attempted negotiation; when that failed, it condemned the easement and Savage sought jury determination of just compensation.
- The circuit court granted summary judgment, ruling the easement conveyed only aerial rights and precluding Savage's experts.
- Savage appealed; the court of appeals reversed, holding the circuit court erred by restricting to aerial rights and remanding for a jury on just compensation.
- Public policy favors a jury determination of just compensation in eminent domain, and compensation is based on the value of the land as a whole before and after the taking.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Interpretation of the Supplemental Easement as aerial rights only | Savage argues easement includes more than aerial rights | ATC contends only aerial rights were taken | Reversed; easement not limited to aerial rights; full before/after value needed |
| Admission of Savage's evidence on before/after value | Savage should testify with his experts on full property value | Evidence limited to aerial rights is adequate | Reversed; evidence on whole-property value admissible |
| ATC's expert witness testimony and privilege | ATC expert should be available to Savage as witness | ATC's expert privilege should bar compelled testimony | Reversed; privilege not controlling; compelled testimony allowed when necessary |
Key Cases Cited
- Fields v. American Transmission Co., 324 Wis. 2d 417 (Wis. Ct. App. 2010) (just compensation requires a holistic valuation of the land)
- Hoekstra v. Guardian Pipeline, LLC, 298 Wis. 2d 165 (Wis. Ct. App. 2006) (evidence and valuation standards in easement condemnations)
- Burnett v. Alt, 224 Wis. 2d 72 (Wis. 1999) (expert privilege limits on compelled testimony)
- Fields, 260 N. 12th St., LLC v. DOT, 338 Wis. 2d 34 (Wis. 2011) (public policy supporting jury determination in eminent domain)
- AKG Real Estate, LLC v. Kosterman, 296 Wis. 2d 1 (Wis. 2006) (interpretation of unambiguous easements; evidentiary rulings)