Case Title: State v. Sovich

Citation: 252 N.E.2d 582, 253 Ind. 224

Docket Number: 

State: indiana

Court: Indiana Supreme Court

Date: 1969-12-03T00:00:00Z

Document:
253 Ind. 224 (1969)
252 N.E.2d 582
STATE OF INDIANA
v.
SOVICH ET AL.
No. 868-S-131.

Supreme Court of Indiana.
Filed December 3, 1969.
*225 Theodore L. Sendak, Attorney General, Richard V. Bennett, Deputy Attorney General, Duejean C. Garrett, Deputy Attorney General, for appellant.
Michael C. Harris, Robert A. Welsh, Chesterton, for appellees.
JACKSON, J.
This is a condemnation action brought by the appellant to appropriate certain real estate owned by the appellees for the purpose of widening and improving U.S. Highway 12. Appellant filed its complaint in the Circuit Court of Porter County, Indiana, on September 30, 1966, which complaint, omitting formal parts, reads as follows:
Pursuant to notice the court on October 28, 1966, the parties being present and it appearing that defendants had entered their appearance, examined the complaint, heard the evidence and being duly advised in the premises found that plaintiff's complaint was true, that plaintiff was entitled to condemn and appropriate the land so sought and described therein and that appraisers should be appointed to view said real estate and assess damages, if any, to which defendants may be entitled. The court then entered its order condemning the land described in the complaint, appointed three disinterested freeholders of that county to assess the damages and benefits, if any, sustained by the defendants as a result of such appropriation.
The chronology of events thereafter is as follows:
On December 5, 1966, appraisers reported the total damages to be $81,027.50.
On the same day appellant filed exceptions to the report of the appraisers and filed a request for jury trial.
On December 8, 1966, appellees filed exceptions to the report of the appraisers and requested a jury trial.
On March 19, 1968, the cause was submitted for trial by jury.
On March 22, 1968, the jury returned a verdict for appellee in the sum of $100,000.00.
*231 On April 5, 1968, the court rendered judgment on the verdict so rendered, such judgment in pertinent part reads as follows:
April 20, 1968, appellant filed its Motion for New Trial, with supporting memorandum, the same encompassing twenty-eight pages of record and contains 25 alleged separate errors all of which in the interest of brevity are omitted.
On May 27, 1968, the court denied appellant's Motion for New Trial. On appeal appellant's Assignment of Errors is the single specification: "1. The Court erred in overruling Appellant's motion for a new trial."
From the evidence adduced at trial it appears that the real estate in question is located in Porter County, Indiana, and consisted of two parcels totaling approximately two and one-quarter acres. The parcels were situated at the intersection of U.S. Highway 12 and County Road. One parcel was triangular in shape, containing three-fourths of an acre, and had approximately three hundred feet of frontage on U.S. 12. The other parcel contained one and one-half acres with three hundred-forty feet of frontage on U.S. 12. On this second parcel were located a frame house and several other buildings. All of the appellee's property described above, with the exception of a plot totaling approximately one third of an acre, was taken by the appellant.
Although appellant's Motion for New Trial contains numerous allegations of error, appellant in its brief argues only *233 three grounds for reversal. Accordingly, appellant has thereby waived all other allegations of error. Supreme Court Rule 2-17; State v. Porter County Drainage Bd. (1968), 250 Ind. 216, 235 N.E.2d 491.
Appellant's first contention is that the trial court erred in granting the appellee's motion to strike certain testimony from the record. The testimony involved was that of Mr. Kenneth Chitwood, an expert witness called by the appellant. On direct examination Mr. Chitwood testified that his estimate of the value of the property was based, in part, on the future development of the area. He concluded that the future development would impair the value of the property as sites for modern service stations, and that the highest and best use of the land would be as commercial or industrial sites. On cross-examination, the witness stated that his opinion as to value was partially based on the changes that would be brought about upon completion of the project for which appellees' property was being taken. Further, the witness stated that he knew, at the time of the taking, that there would be changes in traffic patterns occasioned by the highway project. The appellees then moved to strike the witness's testimony "solely with respect to the value of the land." This motion was sustained by the trial court.
Appellant contends that the witness was not in error in considering the changes in traffic patterns resulting from this highway building program. Appellant argues that the matter could properly be considered in that it affected the sale value at the time of the taking. Thus, the State contends, in effect, that the trier of fact may properly consider, in determining the value of the property being condemned, the decrease in market value occasioned by the same project for which it is necessary to take the property in the first place.
It is difficult to imagine a more specious argument. If appellant's argument were adopted by this Court it would be a simple matter for any condemnor to depress property *234 values merely by publishing details of the planned project. Although this Court has never addressed itself to this precise issue, it is cear that the weight of authority holds that neither an increase nor a decrease in the market value of the property sought to be taken, which is brought about by the same project for which the property is being taken, may be considered in determining the value of the property. Maryland National Park and Planning Commission v. McCaw (1967), 229 A.2d 584; United States v. 74.60 Acres (1966), 358 F.2d 143; United States v. Miller (1942), 317 U.S. 369; Kerr v. South Park Commissioners (1886), 117 U.S. 379.
As was stated by the Supreme Court of Florida in State Road Department v. Chicone (1963), 158 So.2d 753:
Therefore, it was not error for the trial court to grant appellees' motion to strike.
Appellant contends, that the appellee "opened the door" to the testimony in that appellees' own witnesses testified as to the future developments in the area. It is true that appellees' witnesses testified as to future developments. However, those developments as to which appellees' witnesses testified were projects which were either already in existence or under construction at the time of the taking. Further, they were projects independent of the highway project for which appellees' property was being condemned. Consequently, the testimony of appellees' witnesses did not result in a waiver of any objection to Mr. Chitwood's testimony.
Finally, appellant contends that appellee waived any objection to Mr. Chitwood's testimony by reason of appellees' failure *235 to timely object while the witness was being questioned on direct examination. However, appellees argue that it was never made clear on direct examination whether the witness was testifying to the value of the property, the highest and best use of the property, or was merely discussing future changes. On cross-examination by the appellees it was made clear that the witness was considering the effects of the highway project requiring the condemnation of appellees' land in this action in determining the value of appellees' land. It was at this time, when the basis, in part, of the witness's opinion as to value was made clear, that the appellees moved to strike the witness's testimony as to value. This motion to strike was granted by the trial court.
It is clear from the record that on direct examination there was nothing to indicate that the witness was basing his opinion, in part, on the effects of the highway project. This was only made clear on cross-examination of the witness. Thus, the motion to strike was not untimely since it was made when the objectionable nature of the testimony as to value first became known. Healey, Admr. v. Healey (1952), 123 Ind. App. 155, 109 N.E.2d 101; Ross v. The State (1894), 9 Ind. App. 35.
Therefore, the trial court did not err in sustaining appellees' Motion to Strike.
DeBruler, C.J. and Arterburn, Hunter and Givan, JJ., concur.
NOTE.  Reported in 252 N.E.2d 582.