Case Title: Alabama Dept. of Transp. v. LAND ENERGY

Citation: 886 So. 2d 787

Docket Number: 1020393

State: alabama

Court: Alabama Supreme Court

Date: 2004-02-06T00:00:00Z

Document:
886 So. 2d 787 (2004)
ALABAMA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
v.
LAND ENERGY, LTD.
1020393.

Supreme Court of Alabama.
February 6, 2004.
Rehearing Denied March 12, 2004.
*789 Isaac P. Espy, deputy atty. gen., and Bradley M. Hale of Espy, Nettles, Scogin & Brantley, P.C., Tuscaloosa, for appellant.
Charles A. Hardin of Watson, deGraffenreid, Hardin & Tyra, LLP, Tuscaloosa; and Matthew H. Lembke and Scott Burnett Smith of Bradley Arant Rose & White, LLP, Birmingham, for appellee.
Fournier J. Gale III of Maynard, Cooper & Gale, P.C., Birmingham; and Edward A. "Ted" Hosp of Maynard, Cooper & Gale, P.C., Montgomery, for amici curiae Alabama Coal Association, Drummond Company, Inc., Alabama Power Company, Jim Walter Resources, Taft Coal & Associates, and U.S. Steel Mining Co., LLC, in support of the appellee.
HARWOOD, Justice.
Land Energy, Ltd. ("LE"), brought an inverse-condemnation action against the Alabama Department of Transportation ("ADOT").[1] After court-ordered mediation was unsuccessful, the case proceeded to a jury trial. ADOT moved for judgment as a matter of law ("JML") at the close of LE's case and again at the close of all of the evidence. The trial judge denied both motions. The jury found ADOT liable for inverse condemnation and awarded LE $650,000 in compensatory damages; the court entered a judgment on the verdict. Pursuant to Rule 50, Ala.R.Civ.P., ADOT renewed its motion for a JML and moved, alternatively, for a new trial; LE responded to ADOT's motion, and also filed a motion to have the trial court take judicial notice of certain deeds in its chain of title to the condemned property. In an order entered November 8, 2002, the trial court declined to take judicial notice of the requested documents to the extent requested by LE and denied ADOT's renewed motion for a JML or for a new trial; that order stated, in pertinent part:
ADOT appeals. ADOT argues to this Court that it did not "take" LE's mineral estate, and, therefore, that its motion for a JML should have been granted, or, alternatively, that a new trial should be ordered because the trial court erred in various evidentiary rulings allowing or disallowing certain testimony or evidence. We affirm.
ADOT needed to acquire certain rights in various parcels of privately owned property to complete a highway project known as Corridor X, designed to link Birmingham, Alabama, and Memphis, Tennessee. The parcel involved in this case contains approximately 120 acres and is located in Marion County, Alabama. The "Pearce Estate" owned the surface of the land; LE, an investment group that owns property consisting of both surface land and mineral rights, owned the mineral estate to the 120 acres. LE's mineral estate, which the parties stipulated contains 374,000 tons of surface coal, is the subject of this dispute.
ADOT hired Dr. Henry McCarl, a licensed geologist and the owner of a geological consulting firm, to investigate whether the recovery of the coal contained within LE's mineral estate was economically feasible. Dr. McCarl went to the area, took measurements and studied data contained in various "drill logs," and then reported that there was coal under the surface but that it was not economically recoverable. Based on that report, ADOT elected to acquire only the surface rights to a portion of the property owned by the Pearce Estate, specifically the surface rights to 34.08 acres of the 120-acre tract, through a condemnation action filed September 23, 1999, forgoing any attempt to condemn LE's mineral estate. ADOT ultimately paid the Pearce Estate $31,000 for the condemned surface acreage. LE was aware of the proposed Corridor X, but did not know the route ADOT had planned for it. ADOT had obtained permission from Howard Graham, LE's property manager, some four or five years before the September 1999 condemnation action, "to go on" or "cross" the Pearce Estate's land to conduct core-drilling operations. ADOT never informed LE of the results of those drilling operations or that the condemnation action had been instituted. The first time LE became aware that Corridor X would cross a portion of the 120-acre tract was when Graham and John Oliver, an owner of LE, were touring the property in February 2000 and saw construction of the highway underway. LE then asked ADOT if it could get permission for a mining company to remove the coal on the property before the highway was completed. That request was refused.
The only disputed issues presented to the jury were whether by condemning the 34.08 acres ADOT had "taken" LE's coal reserves, i.e., (1) whether those reserves were economically recoverable, (2) whether the surface owner would have consented to surface mining, and, (3) if there was a taking, what compensation LE was due based on the value of those reserves.
Ex parte Alfa Mut. Fire Ins. Co., 742 So. 2d 1237, 1240 (Ala.1999).
McBride v. Sheppard, 624 So. 2d 1069, 1070-71 (Ala.1993). Moreover, the standard this Court applies in reviewing the trial court's rulings on evidentiary matters is to determine whether the trial court exceeded its discretion. Crest Constr. Corp. v. Shelby County Bd. of Educ., 612 So. 2d 425 (Ala.1992).
ADOT first argues that its acquisition of the property owned by the Pearce Estate did not constitute a "taking" of the mineral estate. Describing the State's power of eminent domain, Ala. Const. Art. I, § 23, requires that any taking of private property by the State be compensated:
(Emphasis added.) Generally, the State's exercise of the power of eminent domain is accomplished through the statutorily regulated process of condemnation. See, e.g., State Dep't of Transp. v. McLelland, 639 So. 2d 1370 (Ala.1994). Section 18-1A-32(a), Ala.Code 1975, provides:
This Court stated in Ex parte Carter, 395 So. 2d 65, 67 (Ala.1980), "[i]nverse condemnation is defined as the taking of private property for public use without formal condemnation proceedings and without just compensation being paid by a governmental agency or entity which has the right or power of condemnation."
If the owner of a mineral estate does not own the surface land, the owner of the mineral estate must obtain permission from the surface owner to disturb the surface in order to mine the minerals. See *793 Bibby v. Bunch, 176 Ala. 585, 589, 58 So. 916, 917 (1912). As noted, ADOT refused LE permission to mine the coal within the acquired right-of-way. Also, the parties agree that an applicable regulation of the Alabama Surface Mining Commission in the Alabama Administrative Code forbids mining "[w]ithin 100 feet measured horizontally, of the outside right-of-way line of any public road." Reg. 880-X-7B-.06(4). There was ample testimony before the jury indicating that the combined effect of the condemnation of a portion of the Pearce Estate property and the 100-foot "set back" provision was that LE will never be able to access any of the coal. Therefore, LE asserts, ADOT has effectively "taken" the entire of its mineral estate.
Because the trial judge's instructions to the jury at the conclusion of the trial are so important to our resolution of this appeal, we set out the following fairly lengthy excerpts from those instructions, representing the portions pertinent to the substantive issues involved here:
At the conclusion of the charge the only objections stated by ADOT were as follows:
Any portion of the jury charge to which ADOT did not object became "the law of the case."
Clark v. Black, 630 So. 2d 1012, 1017 (Ala.1994)(footnote omitted).
Fraser v. Reynolds, 588 So. 2d 442, 446-47 (Ala.1990)(footnote omitted).
Rule 51, Ala.R.Civ.P., provides, in pertinent part:
*796 A general objection to the giving of, or the refusal to give, a jury instruction, not accompanied by an adequate explanation of the thrust of the ground, is insufficient to preserve any error associated with the giving, or refusal, of the charge. Vaughan v. Oliver, 822 So. 2d 1163 (Ala.2001); Waites v. Malone, 658 So. 2d 396 (Ala.1995); Alfa Mut. Ins. Co. v. Northington, 561 So. 2d 1041 (Ala.1990).
Also, at the appellate level, an objection to a jury charge not argued in an appellant's brief is deemed waived; an appellate court considers only issues argued in the appellate brief. Lowery v. Stinson, 291 Ala. 415, 282 So. 2d 244 (1973).
In its principal brief on appeal, ADOT argues first that the jury charge was flawed because it discussed "the details of condemnation procedure, including the charge based on Ala.Code § 18-1A-32 (1997)."[2] The trial judge explained to the jury that it gave the details of the condemnation procedure "for background" and emphasized that the claim at issue was an inverse-condemnation claim. ADOT objected to the portion of the charge paraphrasing § 18-1A-32(a), solely on the ground that a consideration of that Code section "should not enter into the damages in this case and [that the court's paraphrasing of it] unfairly prejudice[d] the state in that respect." Therefore, ADOT cannot now be heard to say that that portion of the charge was prejudicial as to the separate issue whether there had been a taking. Moreover, ADOT does not explain how it was prejudiced as a result of the trial court's giving this charge. See Rule 45, Ala.R.App.P.
Concerning the charge, ADOT next argues that the trial court erred in instructing the jury that it might find that a taking had occurred if it found that ADOT "by its acquisition of the surface above the mineral estate of [LE] improperly prohibited [LE] from being able to recover its coal" (emphasis added by ADOT), contending that the adverb should have been "unlawfully." It is ADOT's position in its principal brief that use of the term "improperly" without providing any definition left the jury "with no guidance how to resolve this issue." In its reply brief, ADOT expands on this argument to say that" `improperly' is much broader than the `unlawfully' as requested by ADOT," and that, regardless of which term was used, "the term must be defined for the jury to comprehend what it is asked to do." ADOT argues that it "made that request and it was refused," referencing the page of the record where its requested charge "5A" appears. That charge would have told the jury that "[i]n the context of this case unlawful means such actions as would make a similarly situated private surface owner liable to [LE] in damages." We do not consider a definition of "unlawful" predicated solely on actions that would make a private party civilly liable in damages to be an accurate definition.
The above is the extent of ADOT's arguments to this Court concerning perceived errors in the jury charge. ADOT presents no arguments as to the other objections it made to the charge at trial. Therefore, the trial court's jury charge, as excerpted above, bound the jury and narrows our analysis of the issues.
Under the governing "law of the case," it was exclusively within the province of the jury to determine whether there had been a "taking," which could be found to have occurred if the jury concluded that *797 ADOT had "improperly prohibited [LE] from being able to recover its own coal." If the jury found to its "reasonable satisfaction" that ADOT, by acquiring the surface property, had "improperly foreclosed the possibility" that LE could access the coal on that property, it could have found that a taking occurred. It would then be the jury's duty to determine damages. Detailed instructions were given concerning approaches for determining damages. The jury was told to look to the "difference in market value just before and just after the taking," which the parties stipulated was September 23, 1999, if a taking was found to have occurred. The jury was to consider "the use to which the property is reasonably adopted, though the property is not presently so used." The jury was told that LE was "entitled to have the value of the property determined on its highest and best use," although not a merely speculative or imaginary use.
ADOT argues that the trial court erred in denying its motion for a JML, because, it argues, "the trial court heard no evidence that justified allowing the jury to determine whether or not a taking had occurred." ADOT goes on to state that
ADOT further asserts that the "takings jurisprudence of the U.S. Supreme Court has recognized two types of compensable regulatory takings: Categorical and partial." It contends that a categorical taking is one in which all economically viable use, meaning all economic value, has been absorbed by the regulatory imposition. By process of elimination, it concludes that the alleged taking in this case must be analyzed as a "partial" taking that is "regulatory in nature" because LE's claim, which relates only to "a portion of the mineral estate, i.e., the surface mineable coal, prevents any conclusion that a categorical taking of the 120-acre mineral estate occurred." Thus, in accordance with the legal position ADOT has staked out, this Court must consider whether there was substantial evidence from which the jury could reasonably have concluded that either a full or a partial taking occurred. Citing Penn Central Transportation Co. v. City of New York, 438 U.S. 104, 130-31, 98 S. Ct. 2646, 57 L. Ed. 2d 631 (1978), ADOT argues that "[t]he point at which regulation becomes a partial taking does not present a bright line test, but rather an ad hoc balancing test focused on (1) distinct investment backed expectations, (2) the nature of the government action, and (3) the economic impact on the property owner."
In its initial motion for a JML, ADOT argued that there was no proof that there had been a "categorical taking," because, it said, there was no proof that ADOT had taken all value from the mineral interest or that the State had assumed a position that encumbered the mineral interest more than it was encumbered by the previous owner. ADOT cited Penn Central, supra, for the proposition that a regulatory taking must be so intrusive, based on reasonable investor-backed expectations, that it is tantamount to taking all of the estate in question. ADOT asserted that, because it took only 34 acres, leaving 86 acres of the 120-acre tract, that standard was not met. ADOT argued that because the Pearce Estate "had no obligation to allow mining *798 of the property under it," ADOT had no more obligation to allow mining than had the Pearce Estate. At the close of all the evidence, ADOT renewed its motion for a JML, asking the court to consider the motion "along with the authorities and arguments which [ADOT] submitted with [its] trial brief." At the hearing on postjudgment motions, which the trial court conducted on October 16, 2002, ADOT renewed its motion for a JML but stated that it would "not propose to go through [the] written motion."
In its trial brief, ADOT made the following assertions:
(Emphasis supplied.) With respect to "regulatory takings," ADOT referred in its trial brief to "a growing body of federal law involving the issue," citing six decisions of the United States Supreme Court, including Penn Central, supra; Lucas v. South Carolina Coastal Council, 505 U.S. 1003, 112 S. Ct. 2886, 120 L. Ed. 2d 798 (1992); and Tahoe-Sierra Preservation Council, Inc. v. Tahoe Regional Planning Agency, 535 U.S. 302, 122 S. Ct. 1465, 152 L. Ed. 2d 517 (2002). Citing Lucas, ADOT now states to this Court that "[a] regulatory taking occurs where the owner retains the property, but its use is now regulated to such a degree that it is the legal equivalent of a taking." (ADOT's brief, at 41-42.)
In Penn Central, supra, the United States Supreme Court acknowledged that it had theretofore been unable to develop any set formula for determining when compensation for a regulatory taking was due from the government, explaining that the cases on point had engaged in "essentially ad hoc, factual inquiries." Among the factors prior caselaw had identified as having particular significance in the analysis was "[t]he economic impact of the regulation on the claimant and, particularly, the extent to which the regulation has interfered with distinct investment-backed expectations." 438 U.S.  at 124, 98 S. Ct. 2646. In Lucas, the Court acknowledged that its caselaw had produced some "inconsistent pronouncements." 505 U.S.  at 1016 n. 7, 112 S. Ct. 2886. The Court pointed out that it had said on numerous occasions "[that] the Fifth Amendment is violated when land-use regulation ... `denies an owner economically viable use of his land.'" 505 U.S.  at 1016, 112 S. Ct. 2886 (quoting Agins v. City of Tiburon, 447 U.S. 255, 100 S. Ct. 2138, 65 L. Ed. 2d 106 (1980)) (emphasis added in Lucas). Tempering those statements, however, is the Court's observation that a state would not have to provide compensation even though its regulation deprived land of all economically beneficial use if the owner's estate was such "that the proscribed use interests were not part of his title to begin with." 505 U.S.  at 1027, 112 S. Ct. 2886.
In Tahoe-Sierra Preservation Council, supra, the Court explained that "[t]he Penn Central analysis involves `a complex of factors including the regulation's economic effect on the landowner, the extent to which the regulation interferes with reasonable investment-backed expectations, and the character of the government action.'" *799 535 U.S.  at 315 n. 10, 122 S. Ct. 1465 (quoting Palazzolo v. Rhode Island, 533 U.S. 606, 616, 121 S. Ct. 2448, 150 L. Ed. 2d 592 (2001)). The phrase actually used in Penn Central was "distinct investment-backed expectations." Penn Central cited Goldblatt v. Town of Hempstead, 369 U.S. 590, 594, 82 S. Ct. 987, 8 L. Ed. 2d 130 (1962), as the source of this factor, but no phrasing similar to it is used at the page cited or anywhere else in the Goldblatt opinion. The relevant statements that appear on the page cited from Goldblatt are simply that "[t]here is no set formula to determine where regulation ends and taking begins"; that a "comparison of values before and after is relevant," but "by no means conclusive"; and that "[h]ow far regulation may go before it becomes a taking we need not now decide, for there is no evidence in the present record which even remotely suggests that prohibition of further mining will reduce the value of the lot in question" (footnote omitted).[3]
The specific terminology "distinct investment-backed expectations" originates in Penn Central, but is not defined in that opinion or any subsequent decision of the United States Supreme Court relating to regulatory takings. Penn Central does seem to employ that concept in its analysis, however, observing that the regulatory law in question "does not interfere with what must be regarded as Penn Central's primary expectation concerning the use of the parcel" and that "[m]ore importantly," the law permitted Penn Central, the owner of the property, "not only to profit from [the property in question] but also to obtain a `reasonable return' on its investment." 438 U.S.  at 136, 98 S. Ct. 2646. ADOT argues to this Court that because LE knew that it did not own the surface rights when it acquired the mineral rights to the 120-acre parcel as a part of its overall purchase, and knew that it would have to obtain consent from the surface owner to conduct surface mining, LE had "[n]o basis for any reasonable expectation of a return on investment" for the mineral estate.
Analyzing ADOT's argument in the context of regulatory takings jurisprudence, to which ADOT has committed itself, we find the following testimony in the record to be relevant to LE's "reasonable expectation of a return on investment."[4]
(1) In 1989 LE acquired ownership of approximately 30,000 acres of mineral rights and 15,000 acres of surface rights in northwest Alabama, for a purchase price of $8,000,000. The 120-acre mineral estate at issue in this case was included in approximately 7,000 to 7,200 acres LE acquired located in Marion County, which was in turn included in the 30,000 acres.
(2) Howard Graham, LE's property manager, testified that when LE leased mining rights to a coal-mining company for extraction of the coal by surface mining, it received a specified royalty. The mining company would then have to obtain the right to surface mine from the surface owner. Based on his extensive experience in the coal-mining business, as detailed in the record, Graham was of the opinion that if Corridor X had not been proposed, and an agreement for surface-mining rights had been obtained, it would have been economically feasible to mine the 120-acre tract. He explained that it is the *800 responsibility of the mining company to obtain surface rights, and the standard lease used by LE required payment of a minimum royalty regardless of whether the miner was able to secure a surface lease. Graham was of the opinion that the coal reserve under the 120 acres was about 300,000 tons, which would translate to a royalty payment to LE by the miner of $720,000. Graham testified that LE does not actually conduct mining operations itself; rather, it sells timber and leases coal rights to the property it owns. Graham also testified that AmSouth Bank is the trustee of the Pearce Estate and that LE had never attempted to obtain surface rights on the 120 acres. Concerning the value of the ownership of coal reserves on property even where the surface rights have not been acquired from the surface owner, Graham explained that LE "received royalty payments on mineral interest that [it] own[s] now from lands on which a few years ago the surface wasn't available by any means. But people die and things change and surface rights become available. So those things change." He opined that so long as property is privately owned there is always an opportunity for somebody to lease it. In fact, Graham testified that the Pearce Estate had leased the surface rights it owned in property immediately adjacent to the 120 acres to a coal-mining company that has commenced surface-mining operations; those operations were ongoing at the time of trial.
(3) Phillip Eads, a certified public accountant employed by Lost Creek Coal Company, who participated in all of Lost Creek's lease negotiations, testified that Lost Creek had orally agreed to lease from LE the mineral rights under the 120 acres for a guaranteed amount of $50,000 per year and $2.40 per ton on the minerals. He testified that AmSouth Bank, as trustee of the Pearce Estate, was not approached at the time regarding leasing the surface because there was a timber lease on the acreage and the decision was made to wait until the timber had been harvested before approaching AmSouth. According to Eads, Lost Creek was sold before that came about, however.
(4) Steve Ingle, a professional engineer with extensive experience in coal mining, testified that the condemnation for the Corridor X project took only 34.4 acres of the 120-acre tract but "that did not include setbacks of any sort." He calculated that the 120-acre tract contained 354,000 tons of coal, of which, using the industry standard of 85 percent recovery, about 300,900 tons were recoverable. According to Ingle, the royalty return for the recoverable tonnage over the course of the two and a half to three years it would have taken to completely mine the tract, would have been $722,400. He explained that the area affected was much greater than the 34.4 acres actually condemned because, he stated:
(5) John Oliver, one of the owners of LE, testified that when the company purchased its holdings of some 30,000 acres of mineral rights and some 10,000 or 12,000 acres of surface rights, the "business plan, when [LE] acquired these properties, was to lease the coal rights  the mining rights to different coal companies" and to grow timber on the property for which LE held the surface rights, so it could pay the $8,000,000 debt. Oliver expressed the opinion that the value of LE's 120-acre *801 mineral estate as of September 1999 was "over $720,000."[5] He testified that the two seams of coal under the 120-acre property extractable by surface mining qualify as "steam coal," which power companies use to generate electricity and for which there is a good market. Important to our analysis of whether the jury could have reasonably found from the evidence that LE's mineral estate represented a sufficient property interest or property-use interest so as to be susceptible of a taking is the following portion of Oliver's testimony:
On cross-examination, ADOT's attorney asked: "You expected,... if [ADOT] had not acquired a part of the Pearce Estate property that it would have brought to your coffer, $720,000?" Oliver answered, "I do. As soon as the coal  I mean the timber cutting contract expired."
(6) Roger Wilson, ADOT's right-of-way specialist for the district that includes the 120 acres, and "the guy here to talk for the State," testified at one point that although it had not been ADOT's policy before the Corridor X project not to notify owners of mineral interests of a condemnation of surface interests, that was the policy for the Corridor X project. Wilson said that, as to the 120 acres, the decision was made not to notify LE, based "on the advice of our geologist as to whether we make an offer for minerals or not." According to Wilson, ADOT knew that the Pearce Estate was the surface owner of the 120 acres but that LE owned the mineral interest. Wilson acknowledged that if ADOT had notified LE "then they would *802 have had the right to participate at the beginning," including the right to contest the taking and the right to have a commission appointed to meet with Oliver and listen to what he had to say about the property and its value, and then report its decision to the probate court. Wilson testified that notifying LE would have been "a good idea to let somebody know that they had a right," and would have been fair, just, and right. He explained that not notifying LE was "not [his] choice." According to Wilson, before the State filed its condemnation application for the surface rights, it had conducted test drillings by which it determined that two coal seams ran under the property. Wilson explained that ADOT retained Dr. McCarl to review all of the tracts along Corridor X in which "we thought there was any chance there would be minerals under." In any situation where it was determined that the construction "would likely encounter and interfere with [,] takeup coal from some owners," or "encounter and take coal on a tract," ADOT would offer the mineral owner a monetary consideration for the mineral rights and proceed to condemn the property if an agreement could not be reached. If Dr. McCarl reported that it would not be economic "to go after" the coal under a particular tract, ADOT would not make an offer to the mineral-interest owner. Thus, when Dr. McCarl's conclusion was that the construction of the highway project would not "encounter and take coal of the mineral owner," no offer was made. Questioned concerning the meaning of the terminology "encounter and take coal," Wilson testified:
Given the particular procedural and evidentiary posture of this case, and given the "law of the case" established by the jury instructions, we conclude that the jury was entitled to find that LE possessed an identifiable property-use interest before the condemnation. In that regard, one feature of the law of the case, binding on the jury, was the instruction that if it found to its reasonable satisfaction that ADOT "by acquiring the surface above the mineral estate of [LE] improperly foreclosed the possibility that [LE] could recover its minerals," it would be the duty of the jury to determine damages.
The jury was presented with testimony from several qualified witnesses to the effect that the condemnation of the 34.08 acres of road right-of-way, combined with the resulting ban on mining operations within 100 feet of the outside right-of-way line, completely "landlocked" the remaining acreage of the 120-acre tract for mining purposes, rendering the 374,000 tons of coal reserves valueless.
*803 Although there was testimony offered by ADOT contrary to some of the testimony recited above, under the applicable standard of review we must construe the record in favor of LE and look to see only if there is substantial evidence in the record supporting the jury's finding that a taking, as defined by the jury instructions, occurred.
Because ADOT has argued only that this case should be analyzed under principles relating to a regulatory taking, we need not consider other possibly pertinent "taking" concepts.
We discuss only briefly LE's argument that the trial court erred in not taking judicial notice of certain deeds filed as exhibits to its "motion to take judicial notice." LE argues that one of the deeds authorized surface mining without the consent of the surface owner. That deed was never introduced at trial, and its content was not otherwise communicated to the jury. As noted, the trial judge ruled that it would not take judicial notice of the deeds "for adjudicative purposes." LE has not cross-appealed that ruling. Thus, LE cannot in this appeal bolster its claim that the language of that deed conferred a property-use interest.
Having disposed of ADOT's claim that it is entitled to a JML, we turn to its alternative claim that the trial court should have granted its postjudgment motion for a new trial.
ADOT argues that certain charts, prepared by Dr. McCarl solely for use in the mediation, were wrongfully admitted into evidence at trial. ADOT relies on Rule 11, Ala.Civ.Ct.Med.R., which stated at the time the mediation was conducted, in pertinent part:[6]
The evidence at issue consists of tables, created by Dr. McCarl, illustrating the location of the coal within LE's mineral estate. The tables reflect the total area, weight, and possible value of the coal within LE's mineral estate. ADOT contends in its brief to this Court that "the sole purpose of these documents was to facilitate a compromise and settlement of this case through mediation." If that were not so, however, LE would have been entitled to elicit the contents of the tables under Rule 705, Ala.R.Evid., "Disclosure of Facts or Data Underlying Expert Opinion":
*804 During ADOT's direct examination, Dr. McCarl testified:
During cross-examination of Dr. McCarl, counsel for LE showed him two of the tables and elicited from him, without objection, numerous details concerning the contents of the tables, relating to data relevant to Dr. McCarl's previous opinion testimony. Thereafter, the following ensued during a bench conference:
(Emphasis supplied.)
The next morning counsel discussed the matter further with the court:
(Emphasis supplied.) Earlier Dr. McCarl had begun to state in the presence of the jury that he had prepared one of the tables for mediation, but counsel for ADOT cut him off with an objection before he could answer. When Dr. McCarl later attempted to broach the subject again, the trial judge cut him off, advising, "Your attorney, he's spoken."
Under this state of the record (given the exclusion of Dr. McCarl's attempts to speak to the issue), it is not clear that the tables were prepared solely for the mediation. Counsel for LE understood that the tables were provided by ADOT's counsel "at the conclusion of the mediation," in response to LE's preexisting discovery requests. Thus, it has not been shown that the trial court exceeded its discretion in allowing the tables prepared by Dr. McCarl into evidence.
ADOT argues that LE's injection into the proceedings of the issue of ADOT's *806 failure to notify it of the condemnation action caused ADOT to be unfairly prejudiced. It concedes that the references to that fact would constitute only harmless error, but for "the context" of the jury instruction, relating to "improper," as opposed to "unlawful," prevention of access. Our disposition of the "improper" versus "unlawful" issue renders this dependent issue moot.
ADOT's final argument is that the trial court erred by allowing LE to present evidence of certain methods for valuing mineral estates. ADOT's position is that if a taking of LE's mineral estate did occur, it was only a partial taking because no minerals other than coal were taken. The record contains no suggestion, however, that any other minerals of value exist beneath the surface. Based upon its premise that if taking occurred it was only a "partial taking," however, ADOT cites Ala.Code 1975, § 18-1A-170(b), as the appropriate basis for the measure of compensation. That Code section expressly deals only with property acquired by eminent domain, and deals only with "a partial taking." The valuation rule in § 18-1A-170(b) for such a taking is "the difference between the fair market value of the entire property before the taking and the fair market value of the remainder after the taking." ADOT argues that Dr. McCarl's testimony showed that the coal was economically unrecoverable before the Corridor X project. ADOT ignores testimony of other witnesses, quoted earlier, to the effect that the coal could have been economically recovered.
ADOT argues that allowing LE to present evidence of estimated coal reserves and the royalty rate per coal ton was in error. ADOT cites as its sole support for this argument Mills v. United States, 363 F.2d 78 (8th Cir.1966). In that conventual-condemnation case, the owners of the surface rights of the condemned property were also the owners of the mineral rights. The owners' valuation evidence was "presented primarily through witness B.E. Cobb," who was not an owner and whose qualifications are not mentioned. "Cobb's valuation was simply the product of his estimate of reserves [of coal] and 25 cents per ton, that is, tons in place times a suggested royalty." 363 F.2d  at 80. The government offered opposing evidence of before and after values of the surface, with the coal (which, at depths of 130 to 230 feet on one tract and 80 feet on another, could be reached only by underground mining) being evaluated as having "little or no value." Id. The landowners were awarded damages for the value of the coal, but only $7,400. Their sole contention on appeal was that Cobb's testimony was the only competent evidence of value and thus had to be accepted. The United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit rejected that contention, noting many assumptions made by Cobb of demand and willing buyers, supported only by his "own comment that he `would be interested in buying tracts of land such as' those of the owners...." 363 F.2d  at 81. In the present case the various witnesses called by LE to offer value estimates supported their assumptions of demand and willing buyers with explanations. Thus, we cannot say that Mills, the sole case cited by ADOT on this point, requires reversal of the judgment entered on the jury award.
ADOT also argues that § 18-1A-197(3) of the Eminent Domain Code prohibits "as a basis for an opinion as to value of property... [t]he price at which property was optioned, offered, mortgaged or listed for purchase, sale or lease." That Code section relates only to condemnation actions. ADOT asserts, with respect to it, that the "only evidence" LE presented of value of the property was the royalty rate *807 at which LE had unsuccessfully offered to lease its coal. The testimony of Eads, however, was to the effect that LE had successfully leased the coal rights to Lost Creek Coal Company, at a royalty of $2.40 per ton and an additional $50,000 per year, and that only the timing of subsequent events interfered with the lease.
Finally, with respect to its claim that the valuation evidence was improper, ADOT argues that if it had been allowed to show the recording tax LE had paid on the deed for the approximately 7,000 to 7,200 acres in Marion County, the jury could have worked backward somehow to calculate a per acre value specifically for the 120-acre tract. Suffice it to say that LE presented sufficient reasons when that issue came up to demonstrate the unreliability of trying to determine the value of individual acres from mineral documentary taxes and deed taxes paid on over 7,000 acres as to which LE had both surface and mineral rights.
ADOT does not otherwise argue that there was insufficient evidence of value before the jury and it does not otherwise argue that the jury's determination of value was itself excessive.
Under the instructions to the jury concerning the calculation of damages, the points ADOT argues concerning valuation evidence do not discredit the result reached by the jury.
Having carefully considered each argument of error asserted by ADOT and having found none of them to represent reversible error, we affirm the trial court's judgment.
AFFIRMED.
SEE, BROWN, WOODALL, and STUART, JJ., concur.
[1]  The parties alternated at trial between referring to the defendant as ADOT and "the State of Alabama" or "the State," and likewise do so in their briefs to this Court. We will use "ADOT" exclusively as a convenient, but clear, shorthand reference. At no time did ADOT assert State immunity as a defense at the trial court level. In its principal brief to this Court it states: "Though the Director of ADOT is the proper party, this brief maintains the convention used in the pleadings of naming the agency as the party defendant."
[2]  The effect of § 18-1A-32(a), set out earlier in this opinion, is that ADOT, as the condemnor, should not intentionally fail to condemn and require a landowner to file an inverse-condemnation action.
[3]  Penn Central commented that "[i]t is, of course, implicit in Goldblatt that a use restriction on real property may constitute a `taking' ... perhaps if it has an unduly harsh impact upon the owner's use of the property." 438 U.S.  at 127, 98 S. Ct. 2646.
[4]  We recognize that in some cases the figures relating to acreage and tonnage of coal presented by this testimony differ slightly from the figures used elsewhere in this opinion.
[5]  "The owner of personal or real property generally may testify to the value of such property without other qualifications." Charles W. Gamble, McElroy's Alabama Evidence § 128.11, p. 625 (5th ed.1996). Section 18-1A-192(a)(3), Ala.Code 1975, a part of Article 11 of the Eminent Domain Code, provides that a "shareholder, officer, or regular employee designated to testify on behalf of an owner of the property" may testify as to the value of property, "if the owner is not a natural person." Although ADOT sometimes contends in its briefs that the provisions of the Eminent Domain Code are irrelevant to this inverse-condemnation action, it cites as relevant § 18-1A-196 and § 18-1A-197(3), parts of the same Article that includes § 18-1A-192. "When § 18-1A-192 was enacted, the law of Alabama was that ... `[A]n owner of real property may testify to the value of such real property without other qualifications.'" E-Z Serve Convenience Store, Inc. v. State, 686 So. 2d 351, 353 (Ala.Civ.App.1996) (quoting Gregath v. Bates, 359 So. 2d 404, 407 (Ala.Civ.App.1978)).
[6]  Rule 11, Ala.Civ.Ct.Med.R., was amended effective June 26, 2002, to help clarify the rule and to provide certain exceptions.