Utah Department of Transportation v. TBT Property Management, Inc.
2015 UT App 211
| Utah Ct. App. | 2015Background
- UDOT condemned about 10 acres of TBT’s property in Lehi for Pioneer Crossing Highway, including all access rights to Pioneer Crossing appurtenant to TBT’s remainder property.
- UDOT sought immediate occupancy; effective taking date was March 30, 2009.
- TBT claimed severance damages from reduced access to its remainder property after condemnation.
- May 2011 amendment to the condemnation resolution limited access to a 66-foot section, purportedly mitigating severance damages.
- Trial court allowed amendment over TBT’s objections and remanded to determine whether mitigation occurred; jury awarded just compensation and severance damages despite ongoing access disputes.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the amendment modified the taking for mitigation purposes | TBT: amendment did not reduce property taken or provide mitigation | UDOT: amendment creates viable access mitigating damages | Amendment valid; mitigation issue for jury |
| Whether the break in limited-access line constitutes legal access for mitigation | Break does not convey viable access | Break provides access and mitigates damages | Trial court did not err in sending mitigation question to jury |
| Cross-examination of UDOT appraiser under 78B-6-510 | Should examine 2008 appraisal value; relevant to impeachment | Statute bars admission of 2008 value for OCCUPANCY appraisal | Court did not abuse discretion; 2008 value barred under statute |
| Jury view of the property to aid understanding | View would mislead due to ongoing access dispute | View helps understand whole surrounding context | No abuse; view permissible to aid jury understanding |
Key Cases Cited
- Utah Dep't of Transp. v. Ivers, 218 P.3d 583 (2009 UT 56) (mitigation of damages aids constitutional just compensation)
- Daines v. Vincent, 190 P.3d 1269 (2008 UT 51) (review of trial court rulings for abuse of discretion; underlying legal conclusions reviewable for correctness)
- Aurora Credit Servs., Inc. v. Liberty W. Dev., Inc., 970 P.2d 1273 (Utah 1998) (interpretation of civil statutes and evidentiary issues on appeal)
- In re Anna Blackham Aagard Trust, 339 P.3d 937 (2014 UT App 269) (limits on cross-examination and evidentiary rulings)