Case Title: Arkansas State Highway Commission v. Ptak

Citation: 364 S.W.2d 794

Docket Number: 5-2888

State: arkansas

Court: Arkansas Supreme Court

Date: 1963-02-18T00:00:00Z

Document:
364 S.W.2d 794 (1963) ARKANSAS STATE HIGHWAY COMMISSION, Appellant, v. Mrs. Ethel M. PTAK et al., Appellees. No. 5-2888. Supreme Court of Arkansas. February 18, 1963. *795 Dowell Anders, H. Clay Robinson and Donald Langston, Little Rock, for appellant. Donald Poe, Waldron, for appellees. HARRIS, Chief Justice. This is an eminent domain action instituted by the State Highway Commission against Ethel M. Ptak; J. B. Hawthorne and wife Ethel Hawthorne, and Guy W. Alexander and wife, Gladys Alexander, to acquire additional property along Highway #270 for highway purposes. In July, 1961, the commission filed a complaint and Declaration of Taking, depositing the sum of $50.00 for Tract #1 (owned by Ethel Ptak); $1,300.00 for Tract #2 (owned by the Hawthornes), and $500.00 for Tract #14 (owned by the Alexanders).[1] The Circuit Court of Scott County entered its order, giving possession of the property to the Highway Commission. On May 22 and 23, 1962, the case was tried in the Scott County Circuit Court and the jury returned the following verdicts relative to the tracts herein mentioned: Tract #1, owned by Mrs. Ptak, the sum of $850.00 Tract #2, owned by the Hawthornes, $8,000.00 Tract #14, owned by the Alexanders, $3,000.00 From the judgment entered on these particular tracts, the Highway Department brings this appeal. For reversal, appellant asserts that the court erred in not striking the testimony of Tiny Powell, a real estate dealer, for the reason that Powell was not qualified to give an opinion as to market value, since "(a) he did not know market value in the area, and (b) he did not know the physical facts about the property to be valued." It is likewise asserted that the court committed reversible error by permitting testimony relative to the cost of moving certain houses on Tracts #2 and #14. Mr. Powell is in the real estate and insurance business, having been so engaged for 12 years. He is a resident of Mena,[2] owns the Midwest Realty Company, and was the only value witness called by the land owners. *796 As far as general qualifications are concerned, the witness would appear to be qualified in the field of real estate values, and probably was sufficiently familiar with market values in the area (though he did not specifically so state), but after reviewing the evidence, we agree with appellant that Mr. Powell did not seem to be well versed as to the physical facts concerning the properties herein involved. The Hawthorne tract was composed of approximately 46 acres, and the Highway Department condemned .015 of an acre. Mr. Powell valued the entire tract at $25,000 before the taking, and $10,000 after the taking. We have held that where there is a partial taking of a land owner's property, the measure of damages is the difference between the market value of the whole land before the taking and the value of the remainder after the taking. Arkansas State Highway Commission v. Fox, 230 Ark. 287, 322 S.W.2d 81. But the fact that Mr. Powell gave the property a before (the taking) and after (the taking) value does not, within iteslf, raise the testimony to that degree known as substantial evidence. As was stated in Arkansas State Highway Commission v. Byars, 221 Ark. 845, 256 S.W.2d 738, In Missouri-Pacific Transportation Company v. Bell, 197 Ark. 250, 122 S.W.2d 958, we also stated that whether there is any substantial evidence to support the verdict, is a question of law and not of fact. In St. Louis S. W. Ry. Co. v. Braswell, Admr., 198 Ark. 143, 127 S.W.2d 637, it was stated, This, then, being the rule, let us look at the testimony of Mr. Powell in this case. Relative to Tract #2, the Hawthorne land, the following appears in the transcript: Tract #14, owned by the Alexanders was composed of approximately 30 acres, and the Highway Department condemned 0.46. Powell valued the entire tract at $15,000 before the taking, and $4,500 after the taking. Relative to the land, the testimony included: "Q. Do you have any idea how much land the highway department is condemning from this Tract 14? Tract #1, owned by Mrs. Ptak, was composed of approximately 2½ acres, and the Highway Department condemned .002 of an acre. Mr. Powell valued this tract at $10,000 before the taking and $1,000 after the taking. From the record: Here, an objection was interposed by the department to the effect that an appraisal is to be made on the basis of value immediately before and immediately after the taking, and Mr. Powell then testified that the value immediately after the taking in July, 1961, and May 17, 1962, was the same. We think it apparent from the quoted testimony that the witness was not sufficiently familiar with the properties to make a proper appraisal, and that under these circumstances, his testimony cannot be considered substantial evidence. In fact, the trial court evidently strongly considered striking the testimony. Again, quoting the record, Subsequently, however, the court denied the motion. We think appellant's objection to the testimony was proper. Powell was not familiar with the total acreage involved before the taking, nor the acreage remaining after the taking, nor did he know how many *799 square feet were taken. He stated that he appraised the property entirely on a frontage basis. Such an appraisal, of course, relates to only a portion of the property, and was only an additional fact to be considered in the overall appraisal. He was not familiar with the distances of the improvements from the right of way; he was not acquainted with the construction plans, and did not know the proposed status of the properties after completion of the work. Much of the witness' testimony leaves the impression that his inspection of the premises was only casual, and in some instances it would appear that his information was acquired by means other than viewing the property. For instance, in his appraisal, he apparently combined Tracts #2 and #17 (both owned by Hawthorne) as one tract for appraisal purposes. These tracts are over a mile apart, and are separated by property owned by several different persons. When asked as to which side of the highway Tract #2 was located, he replied, "My understanding is its on the north side." In appraising the Ptak property after the taking, Powell stated that he had not particularly noticed that property until May 17, 1962, (a few days before the trial) whereas the actual taking had occurred in July of the previous year.[3] The witness testified that the "corner has been killed", (Ptak property), meaning that the property was inaccessible at the time of the trial, but he admitted that he did not know whether it would be inaccessible when the construction had been completed: "I don't know what the planning is on it, no * * * I looked at it as I seen itas is." Of course, on May 17, construction of the highway was in progress, and it would appear that Mr. Powell's appraisal took into consideration the disrupted condition of the land at this particular time. This was not a proper element of damage. We have held "that a municipality or other public agency in the construction or improvement of streets is not responsible in damages for temporary interference with the use of abutting property." Donaghey v. Lincoln, 171 Ark. 1042, 287 S.W. 407. While two of the three land owners testified as to the before and after value of their respective properties, it is extremely doubtful that their testimony, standing alone, could meet the test of substantial evidence. Much of Mr. Hawthorne's testimony was prefaced by "I guess," and portions of Mr. Alexander's testimony were likewise rather indefinite. At any rate, Mr. Powell appeared to be the principal witness for appellees, and we certainly are unable to say that the jury disregarded his testimony. We have held many times that where error is committed, and proper objection is made, such error will be treated as prejudicial unless it be shown that the appellant was not prejudiced thereby. Equitable Discount Corp. v. Trotter, 233 Ark. 270, 344 S.W.2d 334. Appellant's second point relates to the court's alleged error in permitting evidence relative to the cost of moving certain houses on Tracts #2 and #14. Testimony was introduced as to the cost of relocating the houses by a house mover, plumbing contractor, electrician and a carpenter. Testimony showed that the total cost of moving the Alexander house would amount to $2,719.60, and the total cost of moving several houses on the Hawthorne property was given as $3,952.80.[4] It might be first said that some of this testimony was entirely speculative and remote. An example is given by testimony of Fred Austin, an electrician. From the record: Evidence of the cost of improvements for restoration purposes and of relocation costs is proper. Arkansas State Highway Comm. v. Speck, 230 Ark. 712, 324 S.W.2d 796, 800. But, as was stated in that case, Again, in Kirk v. Pulaski Road Improvement District No. 10, 172 Ark. 1031, 291 S.W. 793, we stated, It follows that restoration costs are proper evidence, but this cost must be fairly definite, and the evidence should reasonably define the improvements or changes that must be made, i. e., the distances that the houses must be moved, etc. Actually, the testimony in this case is somewhat contradictory. Alexander testified that it was extremely doubtful that his house could be moved at all, since it was of log construction with a concrete foundation, and it would be almost impossible to move it without tearing it up. Hawthorne also testified that at least one of his houses could not be moved. The mere fact that a building is closer to the highway does not, in itself, establish damage. In fact, in some instances, benefits might accrue which would offset any damage. The land owner must show that the proximity of the highway to his house, occasioned by the taking, decreased the market value of the property, and the difference in such value before and after the taking would constitute the damage, rather than the cost of moving the house. Mississippi State Highway Commission v. Smith, 187 Miss. 613, 192 So. 448. Of course, if the jury should find that the cost of moving a house would call for a greater expenditure than the damage occasioned by the proximity, the land owner would only be entitled to the proximity damage. *801 It is apparent that the jury considered the cost of moving the houses as actual damages rather than as an aid in determining the difference in the before and after value of the property. The record reflects the following: For the reasons herein set out, the judgment is reversed and the cause is remanded to the Scott County Circuit Court. [1] Numerous other parties and numerous tracts of land were included in the suit, but this appeal relates only to the tracts and parties mentioned. [2] The property is located at Wye City, not a great distance from Mena. [3] Powell never did testify that he made an actual appraisal of the property before July, 1961. He stated that he had been "acquainted" with the property for ten or eleven years. [4] According to Witness Powell, the highest and best use of the Hawthorne and Ptak properties was for commercial purposes.