495 S.W.3d 765
Mo. Ct. App.2016Background
- MHTC began a condemnation of about 1.74 of the 2.3 acres of the Potted Steer Restaurant parcel for a highway easement; remaining parcel is .566 acres.
- A jury awarded the Boers $2,900,000 in damages; trial court entered judgment consistent with verdict and denied post-trial motions.
- Boers valued pre-condemnation value at $3,500,000 and remaining land at $200,000; they requested jury determination of just compensation.
- Boer testified using comparable sales (Link’s Landing, BOLO sale) and his own experience; MHTC objected to his competence and to admissibility of comparables.
- Boer’s expert Kirby and MHTC’s experts Moore and Nunn testified with different valuation conclusions; the jury resolved the dispute.
- MHTC challenged three issues on appeal: Boer’s comparables testimony, the Link’s Landing sale as a remote Comparable, and closing-argument references to business loss.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Boer could base value on comparables without formal expert status | Boer qualified under 490.065 through knowledge and experience. | Boer lacked sufficient qualification to testify on comparables. | No abuse of discretion; Boer properly considered as capable to testify on comparables. |
| Whether Link’s Landing sale (1992) was admissible as a reliable comparable | Age of sale is acceptable if appropriate for uniqueness; testimony supported by 490.065.3. | Sale too remote in time to be reliable. | No abuse of discretion; the court admitted the sale as a valid data point under 490.065.3. |
| Whether closing arguments referencing business loss were permissible | Counsel’s rebuttal to business-loss mention was proper after opening the door. | References to business loss were inflammatory and improper. | No abuse of discretion; door was opened by MHTC, and rebuttal was permissible. |
Key Cases Cited
- State ex rel. Missouri Highway & Transp. Comm'n v. McDonald’s Corp., 872 S.W.2d 108 (Mo. App. E.D. 1994) (testimony on property value by owner may rely on expert-like comparables)
- State ex rel. Missouri Highway & Transp. Comm’n v. Pracht, 801 S.W.2d 90 (Mo. App. E.D. 1990) (comparable sales considered in value evidence)
- Heim, State ex rel. State Highway Commission v., 483 S.W.2d 410 (Mo. App. Spfld. D. 1972) (witnesses may testify on land value if knowledgeable and informed about market)
- Bloomfield Tractor Sales, Inc. v. State, 381 S.W.2d 20 (Mo. App. Spfld. Dist. 1964) (no exact formula; non-experts may testify to land value under certain conditions)
- State ex rel. Missouri Highway & Transp. Comm’n v. Sisk, 954 S.W.2d 503 (Mo. App. W.D. 1997) (remote sales admissibility depends on type of data reasonably relied upon)