Title: Arkansas State Highway Comm'n v. Frisby

State: arkansas

Issuer: Arkansas Supreme Court

Document:

ARKANSAS STATE HIGHWAY COMMISSION v. Raymond
L. FRISBY and Virginia H. Frisby

96-1360                                            ___ S.W.2d ___

                    Supreme Court of Arkansas
              Opinion delivered September 18, 1997


1.   Eminent domain -- partial-taking cases -- formulas for measuring just
     compensation. -- Three recognized formulas for measuring just
     compensation in partial-taking cases are: (1) the value of the
     part taken; (2) the value of the part taken plus the damages
     to the remainder; (3) the before- and after-value rule.

2.   Discovery -- violation -- complaint about failure to update -- trial
     court's discretion. -- Under Rule 26(e)(1) of the Arkansas Rules
     of Civil Procedure, a party is under a duty to supplement a
     discovery response, "in the case of expert witnesses, [with]
     the subject matter on which he is expected to testify, and the
     substance of his testimony"; when a party complains about
     failure to update discovery, the matter lies within the
     discretion of the trial court.

3.   Discovery -- violation -- trial court's granting of two-hour continuance
     was abuse of discretion -- case reversed and remanded. -- The supreme
     court determined that there was an obvious violation of Ark.
     R. Civ. P. 26(e)(1) to the prejudice of appellant where the
     trial court granted a two-hour continuance to allow
     appellant's counsel to examine an expert's final report on the
     value of appellees' property; the court concluded that the
     two-hour continuance was insufficient to allow examination and
     investigation of the new facts and figures contained in the
     final report and thus held that the trial court's response
     amounted to an abuse of discretion sufficient to cause
     reversal and remand of the case.

4.   Eminent domain -- value of property -- owner's testimony must be grounded
     in market value. -- A property owner is allowed to express his
     opinion on the value of the property, but the testimony must
     be grounded in evidence of market value. 

5.   Eminent domain -- value of property -- motion to strike owner's testimony
     based on "feeling" should have been granted. -- Where, during cross-
     examination, appellee property owner stated that he had not
     established a per acre value and that his figure was based
     solely on his "feeling" or what he would have asked for the
     land and not on any facts or figures in the expert's report,
     appellant's motion to strike appellee's testimony should have
     been granted.

6.   Eminent domain -- value of property -- business value must be separated
     from market value. -- Although it is appropriate to ascertain the
     highest and best use of the land, whether considering the
     property condemned or comparable properties that have been
     sold, it is important to separate "business value," such as
     profit potential from a particular business, from the market
     value of the property.

7.   Appeal & error -- sufficiency argument not considered in view of decision
     to reverse and remand. -- The supreme court did not consider
     appellant's sufficiency argument in view of its decision to
     reverse and remand on other points.


     Appeal from Union Circuit Court; David F. Guthrie, Judge;
reversed and remanded.
     Robert L. Wilson, Chief Counsel, and Barbara A. Griffin,
Lawrence W. Jackson, and Maria L. Schenetzke, Staff Att'ys, for
appellant.
     Compton, Prewett, Thomas & Hickey, P.A., by:  William I.
Prewett, for appellees.

     David Newbern, Justice.
     This is an eminent domain case.  For the purpose of widening
U.S. Highway 167 from two to four lanes in Union County, the
Arkansas State Highway Commission ("the Commission") condemned the
.97 acres constituting the highway frontage of a 6.3-acre tract of
land belonging to Raymond L. and Virginia H. Frisby.  With its
condemnation complaint, the Commission deposited $57,550 into the
registry of the Circuit Court as compensation.  The Frisbys
requested a jury trial to determine the value of the land.  A
judgment, based on a jury determination, awarded the Frisbys
$86,050.  The Commission has appealed, arguing that the Frisbys
failed to update discovery responses with respect to the proposed
testimony of their expert appraiser.  We agree that the Commission
was entitled to have an updated response and that the two-hour
continuance granted by the Trial Court on the day of trial was
inadequate to remedy the problem.  We also agree that the testimony
of Raymond L. Frisby should have been stricken and that the
Frisbys' expert gave improper evidence concerning comparable sales. 
The judgment is thus reversed and remanded.

                     1. Discovery violation
     As we said in Arkansas State Highway Comm'n v. Barker, 326
Ark. 403, 405, 931 S.W.2d 138, 140 (1996), "There are three
recognized formulas for measuring just compensation in partial-
taking cases: (1) the value of the part taken; (2) the value of the
part taken plus the damages to the remainder; (3) the before- and
after-value rule.  Young v. Arkansas State Highway Comm'n, 242 Ark.
812,