444 S.W.3d 62
Tex. App.2014Background
- The State condemned 3,569 square feet of Johnson's 114,507-square-foot property for SH 183 expansion; Johnson retains about 110,994 square feet including the four-story office building, the Remainder.
- The condemned area includes only land and paving; access routes to the Remainder will be altered by demolishing the Old Access Road and Private Road, and constructing a New Access Road and a Texas U-turn under SH 183.
- The Sixth Amended Petition reserved some access rights but did not expressly guarantee continuous access to the Remainder during construction; Johnson claimed total, temporary denial of access.
- Experts testified that post-take access would violate Irving fire code, potentially making the Remainder unsafe or noncompliant and altering highest and best use from office to light industrial.
- The jury awarded $3,059,535.74 for damages to the remainder; Johnson sought to recover alleged impairment of access and safety-related impacts, while the State challenged the damages and several evidentiary rulings.
- The Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that the trial court did not err on the contested issues and that the damages award was supported by the record.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Material impairment of access during construction | Johnson: total, temporary denial of access occurs under Sixth Amended Petition. | Johnson's assertion of temporary denial is not guaranteed; petition does not create a right to continuous access during construction. | Trial court did not err; Johnson would suffer a total, temporary denial of access |
| Circuity of travel as a basis for damages | Increased danger to safety (fire access) is recoverable as a peculiarly local injury; not mere circuity of travel. | Circuity of travel is not compensable; only safety-related impact may be considered. | Evidence of safety-related delay was admissible; court did not abuse discretion |
| Admission of expert opinions on fire code and market perception | Shuler/Bolton opinions about fire code noncompliance and market impact are probative and not mere speculation. | Their opinions were unreliable and lacked foundation; should have been excluded. | Exclusion not warranted; any error was harmless given cumulative evidence |
| Jury instruction regarding safety perception damages | Instruction allowed considering the perception that remainder would be less safe post-taking. | Instruction overreaches by allowing non-compensable market perceptions to affect value. | Instruction proper and not outcome-determinative; evidence supports damages |
| Sufficiency of remainder damages evidence | Damages to remainder supported by multiple expert valuations exceeding $3 million | Record lacks reliable support; damages should be reduced or rejected. | Evidence supported the $3,059,535.74 award; within range of trial testimony |
Key Cases Cited
- Santikos v. County of Bexar, 144 S.W.3d 455 (Tex. 2004) (proper measure of severance damages; diminished value of remainder)
- Crestview Corners Car Wash v. Dallas County, 370 S.W.3d 25 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2012) (damages for impaired access; recipe for reversible error not shown)
- City of Austin v. Ave. Corp., 685 S.W.2d 453 (Tex. App.—Dallas 1985) (diminution of value as a potential component of damages; community vs. property-specific injuries)
- Harrell Ranch, Ltd. v. State, 268 S.W.3d 247 (Tex. App.—Austin 2008) (limits on access rights and evidentiary considerations in condemnation)
- Dawmar Partners, Ltd. v. State, 267 S.W.3d 875 (Tex. 2008) (circuity of travel and damages framework in condemnation)
- City of Waco v. Texland Corp., 446 S.W.2d 1 (Tex. 1969) (community vs. peculiarly localized injuries in eminent domain)
- Whataburger, Inc. v. City of Sugar Land, 60 S.W.3d 256 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2001) (recognizes multiple methods of valuing property and limitations on lost profits recovery)
- Colonia Tepeyac, Ltd. v. City of Dallas, 391 S.W.3d 563 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2012) (injuries to remainder must be peculiar to the property, not shared by the community)