Title: MONTANA POWER CO v WOLFE

State: montana

Issuer: Montana Supreme Court

Document:

No. 13022 I N T H E SUPREME C O U R T O F T H E STATE O F M O N T A N A 19 7 5 T H E M O N T A N A P O W E R C O M P A N Y , a Montana Corporation, P l a i n t i f f and Appellant, -vs - S A M U E L WOLFE, L Y N N W O L F E et a l . , Defendants and Respondents. Appeal from: D i s t r i c t Court of t h e Fourth J u d i c i a l D i s t r i c t , Honorable Edward T. Dussault, Judge presiding. Counsel of Record: For Appellant : Garlington, Lohn and Robinson, Missoula, Montana James C. Garlington argued, Missoula, Montana For Respondents: McGarvey and Moore, K a l i s p e l l , Montana Dale McGarvey argued, K a l i s p e l l , Montana Goldman, McChesney and Eck, Missoula, Montana Lawrence Eck argued, M i s soula, Montana Submitted: December 9, 1975 Decided : FFB .r.p ' L L Q - ' ~ M r . J u s t i c e Wesley Castles delivered the Opinion of the Court. In t h i s eminent domain proceeding p l a i n t i f f Montana Power Company appeals the judgment entered on a jury's award of compensation f o r a s t r i p of defendant's land condemned a s an easement f o r p l a i n t i f f ' s 161-KV power transmission l i n e . W e affirm the judgment. The easement condemned i s a s t r i p of land 80 f e e t wide, stretching 11,167 f e e t along the upper bench portion of defendant's 5200 a c r e ranch located on the e a s t s i d e of t h e B i t t e r r o o t valley, e a s t of Stevensville i n Ravalli County. This s t r i p contains an area of 20.5 acres. The remainder of defendant's property sub- j e c t t o depreciation i n value resulting from t h i s taking con- s t i t u t e s 319.5 acres. Eleven pole structures of the p l a i n t i f f u t i l i t y ' s transmission l i n e between i t s Missoula No. 4 substation and Hamilton Heights occupy t h e easement. The pole structures a r e approximately 58 f e e t t a l l . There a r e 9 double pole structures with 2 t r i p l e pole structures i n t h i s easement. The structures a r e v i s i b l e f o r a distance of about 5 miles, and placed on knolls o r promontories i n defendant's timbered pasture and on a small portion of h i s cultivated land. ~ e f e n d a n t ' s ranch a s a whole contained a small amount of i r r i g a t e d hay and pasture land, some dry land crop acreage, and a large amount of dry land grazing, both open and timbered. P l a i n t i f f u t i l i t y commenced these eminent domain proceedings i n the d i s t r i c t court of the fourth j u d i c i a l d i s t r i c t pursuant t o the provisions of Chapter 99, T i t l e 93, R.C.M. 1947. Both p a r t i e s appealed the commissioners' award f o r the easement and depreciation i n value of t h e remainder t o the d i s t r i c t court. Following a jury t r i a l before Hon. Edward Dussault, d i s t r i c t judge, a judgment of $15,382.50 f o r the value of t h e 20.5 acre easement and $23,961.75 f o r depreciation insvalue t o the 319.5 acre remainder was entered f o r defendant, pursuant t o the verdict . p l a i n t i f f ' s motion f o r a new t r i a l was denied by the d i s t r i c t court and t h i s appeal i s taken from the judgment and the order denying a new t r i a l . Two issues a r e presented on appeal: 1. Whether s a l e s comparable i n s i z e , but not i n shape, t o the land taken should have been admitted i n t o evidence? 2. Whether the jury committed reversible e r r o r by not following c o u r t ' s Instruction No. 19 when it awarded $750 per acre f o r the easement? F i r s t , considering p l a i n t i f f ' s objection t o the evidence of comparable s a l e s , we note t h i s Court has approved the use of such evidence i n eminent domain proceedings. State Highway Commission v. Jacobs, 150 Mont. 322, 328, 435 P.2d 274; S t a t e Highway Commi-ssion v. Tubbs, 147 Mont. 296, 303, 411 P.2d 739. Further, when the value of another piece of property i s t e s t i f i e d t o f o r the purpose of showing the basis f o r an expert's opinion, a s was done here, t h e requirement of s i m i l a r i t y i s not so s t r i c t . S t a t e Highway Commission v. Jacobs, supra. Essentially p l a i n t i f f argues t h a t the differences between the 80 foot easement and t h e r e s i d e n t i a l t r a c t s a l e s t e s t i f i e d t o by defendant's expert a r e so great a s t o make the s a l e s not j u d i c i a l l y comparable. Yet it i s well established t h a t appellate review of comparable s a l e evidence admitted by the d i s t r i c t court is limited. 5 Nichols on Eminent Domain, $21.31, pp. 21-54 t o 21-59, s t a t e s : "Similarity does not mean i d e n t i c a l , but having a resemblance. Obviously, no two properties can be exactly a l i k e , and no general r u l e can be l a i d down regarding t h e degree of s i m i l a r i t y t h a t must e x i s t t o make such evidence admissible. It must necessarily vary with t h e circumstances of each p a r t i c u l a r case. Whether the properties a r e s u f f i c i e n t l y similar t o have some bearing on t h e value under consideration, and t o be of any a i d t o the jury, must necessarily r e s t largely i n the sound discretion of t h e t r i a l court, which w i l l not be interfered with unless abused. The exact l i m i t s , e i t h e r of s i m i l a r i t y o r difference, o r of nearness o r remoteness i n point of time, i s d i f f i c u l t , i f not impossible, t o prescribe by any a r b i t r a r y r u l e , but must t o a large extent depend on the location and the character of t h e property and the circumstances of the case. It i s t o be considered with reference t o the l i g h t thrown on the issue, and not a s a mere method of r a i s i n g a legal puzzle." The background of one Roy ~odenberger's testimony on comparable s a l e s and h i s opinion on value can be b r i e f l y summarized. The area of the Wolfe ranch on Burnt Fork Creek, about eight miles out of Stevensville had, i n 1972, an a t t r a c t i o n f o r r u r a l home- s i t e s . Its highest and b e s t use was f o r t h a t purpose. Rodenberger determined t h a t c e r t a i n s a l e s of small homesite t r a c t s were of value i n determining the ultimate value of the land taken here and the damage t o the remainder. In t h i s connection he was care- f u l l y examined, both on d i r e c t and cross. A synopsis of h i s thinking i s probably best expressed i n t h i s question and answer on cross-examination: "Q. And your theory was t h a t i f t h e transactions t h a t a r e i n your l i s t number one were indicative of a twenty acre s a l e , they would be indicative of the value of t h e land within t h e easement? "A. Yes, they would be indicative. However, the lands t h a t a r e i n these sales a r e regular t r a c t s of land i n a planned manner, and there i s no way t o a c t u a l l y compare a regular planned t r a c t of land t h a t may be oblong o r square or even triangular on the edge of a ranch, t o an eighty foot ribbon two miles through the center of the ranch. So, during the whole time of comparison I t r i e d t o make these t r a c t s regular i n t h i s ranch taking, and t h e only way you can do it i s take the forty-acre t r a c t s and say: A l l r i g h t , what a r e they doing t o t h i s t r a c t ? They a r e taking two and a t h i r d acres out of t h i s t r a c t , and i t ' s kind of on the edge. The next forty-acre t r a c t they might be going r i g h t through the middle of it a s t h a t overlay shows. Although it i s indicative of t h e market, it i s n ' t a t r u e comparis6n because, I think, the f a c t t h a t it i s s p l i t t i n g a piece of property i n a eighty- foot ribbon two miles long, which i s d e f i n i t e l y an i r r e g u l a r type shape t r a c t , these comparisbns a r e conservative on the market on t h a t type of a t r a c t . 11 P l a i n t i f f was taking, besides t h e easement, t h e use of e x i s t i n g roadways and access by "reasonable means". It was c l e a r t h a t the q u a l i t y of t h e land taken, t h e quantity, and t h e access easement, were being considered and t h a t because of a l l the circum- stances the easement value was substantially the same a s the f e e value, except for the grazing left. Mr. Rodenberger considered all of these matters. However, plaintiff condemnor contends that the requisite elements of comparability of land values do not exist where a 20 acre fee homesite is likened to an easement strip 80 feet wide, and two miles long. That area alone cannot be a controlling consideration. We agree, but as shown by the foregoing quote of the appraiser Rodenberger, he did not literally do this. We cannot conclude that the sales introduced as a basis for the opinion of defendant's expert amounted to an abuse of discretion by the district court. These recent sales involved tracts of similar sizes and did shed some light on the value of defendant's land for residential development. Differences between these tracts and the easement were thoroughly developed on both direct and cross-examination. Given this, it was for the jury to determine the weight to be given the comparable sales and the expert's appraisal. United States v. 84.4 Acres of Land, Etc., 348 F.2d 117, 119; Illnois Building Authority v. Dembinsky, 101 I11.App.2d 59, 242 N.E.2d 67,69; Redevelopment Agency of Salt Lake City v. Mitsui Investment Inc., (Utah 1974), 522 P.2d 1370, 1373. We find no error. The second issue raised on appeal is based on district court's Instruction No. 19, which reads: "YOU are instructed that the lands being valued in this case for the purpose of determining just compen- sation may not be valued at one amount within the area of the easement and at a different amount in other similar areas of the same tract. Fhere the lands are all in one tract, they must be considered to ether, and their fair market value determined & h i i i g l y . " (Emphasis supplied. ) Plaintiff submits that the jury's award of $15,382.50 or $750 per acre for the 20.5 acre easement is contrary to this instruction. It is contended that since the highest value placed on the remainder was $500 per acre, application of this instruc- tion required the jury to award not greater than $500 per acre for t h e easement taken. In other words, p l a i n t i f f contends t h a t evidence of a lower value f o r the remainder controls t h e value of the easement. The jury here returned by t h e verdict two separate values, $15,382.50 f o r t h e easement taken; and $23,961.75 f o r damages t o the remainder. The remainder was approximately 320 acres. P l a i n t i f f then t o reach its t h e s i s t h a t Instruction No. 19 was violated, argues since owner's witness Rodenberger t e s t i f i e d t h a t the land outside the corridor of the easement had a value of $300 per acre; and the condemnor's witness Glasser t e s t i f i e d t h a t $500. per a c r e was a f a i r figure, t h a t therefore, under the instruction l i t e r a l l y read, there was only evidence t o support a figure of a maximum of $500 per acre r a t h e r than $750 per acre a s found by the jury. Rodenberger had t e s t i f i e d t o a f i g u r e of $1200 per acre f o r t h e land taken. W e r e a l i z e t h a t t o follow the argument and logic of the condemnor i s d i f f i c u l t . Court's Instruction No. 19 cannot be read out of context i n a l i t e r a l manner. It must be read and understood i n the l i g h t of the case. Instruction No. 19 commands only t h a t the lands be I I considered together and t h e i r f a i r market value determined I I accordingly. It does not require a lower appraisal f o r one area of a t r a c t t o control a higher appraisal f o r other areas of the same t r a c t . The instruction simply requires the jury t o a r r i v e a t one value f o r the lands i n the t r a c t . Instruction No. 15, s t a t e s : I I You a r e instructed t h a t j u s t compensation should be arrived a t by considering t h e following: "1. The value of the property sought t o be condemned. "2. I f the property sought t o be condemned cor- s t i t u t e s only a part of a l a r g e r parcel, the. depre- c i a t i o n i n value, i f any, which w i l l accrue t o the portion not sought t o be condemned, by reason of i t s severance from t h e portion sought t o be condemned, and t h e construction of the improvements i n t h e manner proposed by t h e P l a i n t i f f . (Emphasis supplied). Clearly t h i s instruction contemplates jury consideration of evidence of the value of the easement a s well a s damage t o the remainder. Earlier i n t h i s opinion we approved evidence of com- parable s a l e s upon which an expert's appraisal of $1200 per a c r e f o r t h e easement taken was based. It i s not disputed t h a t appraisals of the value of t h e remainder ranged from $300 t o $500 per acre. Thus considering t h e lands together a s required by the court's Instruction No. 19, t h e jury had a permissible range of values from $300 t o $1200 per acre from which it could determine i t s award of j u s t compensation. Presented with t h i s range of values and following the instruction of the court, t h e jury selected t h e mean value of $750 per acre a s the b a s i s of its award. This value f o r the easement i s obviously within the evidence available t o the jury and thus not obviously and palpably out of proportion t o j u s t compensation requiring interference with the findings of t h e jury by t h i s Court. State Highway Commission v. Jacobs, supra. Finding no prejudicial e r r o r i n admission and use of comparable s a l e s data and misapplication of the court's instruc- t i o n s , t h e judgment i s affirmed. W e Concur: f