The Acquisition of Property by Eminent Domain, Unified School District No. 365 v. Diebolt
299 Kan. 37
| Kan. | 2014Background
- Eminent Domain action in Anderson County over 36.2-acre unimproved land.
- Diebolts purchased property in 2006 for $250,000 for Garnett lumberyard expansion.
- Unified School District No. 365 condemned the property; three appraisers valued it at $278,800.
- Diebolts’ deposition claimed value around $431,501.59, based on cost items and a 5% return, despite Diebolts lacking appraisal expertise.
- Trial court allowed limited lay testimony on value and restricted cost- based evidence; pretrial orders and rulings shaped admissibility.
- Jury awarded $249,000; this court reviews rulings under Eminent Domain Procedure Act and related caselaw.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether trial court properly excluded cost-based testimony under Manhattan Ice. | Diebolts relied on direct cost items to justify value. | Costs are not probative of FMV for unimproved land; owner lacks appraisal expertise. | Exclusion affirmed; cost-based lay testimony not admissible without expertise. |
| Whether a property owner may testify to factors not aligned with recognized appraisal methods. | Owner’s knowledge should support value based on the owner’s costs and plans. | Evidence must be relevant to FMV and proper appraisal method. | Limitations upheld; not all owner-provided factors are material or probative. |
| Whether the Diebolts preserved the issue despite no formal 60-405 proffer. | Record sufficiently disclosed substance of evidence and anticipated testimony. | Formal proffer required. | Record adequate under Evans; issue preserved. |
| Whether Manhattan Ice applies to bar lay testimony on cost approach for unimproved land. | Manhattan Ice distinguished only to emphasize foundation, not overall admissibility. | Manhattan Ice requires expert foundation for cost approach; Diebolts lacked expertise. | Manhattan Ice controls; owner cannot assemble cost components for FMV without expert foundation. |
Key Cases Cited
- Manhattan Ice & Cold Storage v. City of Manhattan, 294 Kan. 60 (2012) (lay owner cannot testify to cost-based replacement value without expert foundation)
- Mooney v. City of Overland Park, 283 Kan. 617 (2007) (cost approach testimony requires related expertise; improper relevance otherwise)
- City of Wichita v. May's Co., Inc., 212 Kan. 153 (1973) (landowner foundation for value based on ownership and neighborhood knowledge; not applicable to cost appraisals)
- State v. Holman, 295 Kan. 116 (2012) (issue not briefed deemed waived; proffer scope and review standards upheld)