I N T H E SUPR EM E C O UR T O F M I SS I SS I PPI NO. 2 0 0 5 - CA- 0 2 1 6 7 - S CT TRO W BRI DGE PARTN

ERS, L. P. , A M

I SS I SS I PPI L I M I T ED P AR T NERS HI P; P HI L M OOR E; AN

D NE AL CL EMENT
v. M I S S I S S I P P I T RA NS P OR T AT ION C OM

M I S S ION
D A T E O F JU D G M E N T : 09/ 07/ 2005 T R IA L JU D G E : H O N . W IL L IA M S T R A T T O N A G IN CO UR T F RO M W HI CH AP P E AL E D: M ADI S ON C OUNT Y S P E CI AL CO UR T OF E M IN E N T D O M A IN ATT ORNEYS F OR APP EL LANTS : W . W HI TAKER R AYN ER STEP HEN W . RI M M ER AT T OR NE YS F OR AP P E L L E E : RI CK Y L . BO GGAN ALA N M . PURD I E N A T U R E O F T H E C A S E : C IV IL - E M IN E N T D O M A IN D I SPO SI T I O N : A FFIRM E D - 03/ 22/ 2007 M OT I ON F OR RE HE AR I NG F I L E D: M ANDAT E I S S UE D:
E N B A N C . S M I TH, CH I EF J UST I CE, FOR TH E COU RT: ¶1. T hi s appea l ar i s es f r om an emi nent dom ai n pr ocee di ng brough t by t he M i ssi s s i ppi T r ans por t at i on C om m i s s i on ( her ei naf t er“the C om m i s s i on”) . O n A pr i l 22, 2004, the C o m m iss io n f

ile d a c o m p lain t in th e M a d iso n C o u n ty S p e c ial C o u rt o f E m in e n t D o m a in agai ns tT r ow br i dge Partner s ( her ei naf t er“Trow br i dge”) t o condemn 5. 05 acr es of 8. 45 acr es o f u n d e v e lo p e d lan d in th e C ity o f M a d iso n . T h e p u rp o se o f th e c o n d e m n a tio n w a s to re c o n stru c t an d re lo c a te a se g m e n t o f S tate R o u te 4 6 3 fro m e a st o f In ter sta te 5 5 to U S 5 1 in

### 2

M adi s on, M i s s i s s i ppi . O n N ovember15, 2004, the M adi s on C ounty Speci al C our tof E m i nentD om ai n aw ar ded the C om m i s s i on t i t l e and i m m edi at e pos s es s i on of the conde m ned 5. 05 acr es . A tthe tr i al t o es t abl i s h j us tcompensa t i on, the C om m i s s i on and Trow br i dge
s ubm i t t ed di f

f er i ng evi dence as t o the val ue of the l and t aken. T he j ury r eturned a ve r di ct of $1, 108, 941, upon w hi ch j udgm entw as e nt er ed. Tr ow br i dge appea l s the j udgm entof the tr ia l c o u rt . F ACT S AND P ROCE DURAL HI S TORY ¶2. T he conde m ned 5. 05 a cr es a r e a partof an 8. 45- acr e tr actof

undevel oped l and ow ned by T row bri dg e P artners, L . P . , a M i ssi ssi pp i L i m i t ed P artnershi p, w i th tw o l i m i t ed p artners - Phi l M oor e of

M adi s on, M i s s i s s i ppi and N eal C l ementof J acks on, M i s s i s s i pp i . T he 5. 05
acr es thatthe C om m i s s i on s oughtt o condemn ar e l ocat ed di r ect l y i n the cent erof the 8. 45-
a c r e tr a c to f

l a n d . Af

t e rth e t a k i n g , th e r e ma i n d e ro f th e s u b j e c tp r o p e r ty i n c l u d e d two s m al l er par cel s of

l and. T he par cel l ocat ed i n the nor thern cornerof the s ubj ectpr operty w as appr oxi m at el y 1. 47 acr es f r ont i ng H oy R oad. T he par cel l ocat ed i n the s outhern cornerof the subj ectpropert y w as approx i m at el y 1 . 93 acres . ¶3 . T he t r i al c om m ence d on A ugus t9, 2005, t o e s t abl i s h the t otal am ou nt of
co m p en sati o n d u e to T row b ri d g e. A t tr ial , th e ex p ert ap p raiser f o r th e C o m m issi o n , T erry W el l s , t es t i f

i ed thats i ze i s an i m por t antf act ori n det erm i ni ng t he val ue of pr operty and that
s m al l erpar cel s ar e w or th more pe rs quar e f ootthan l ar gerpa r cel s . W el l s al s o t es t i f i ed that the s ubj ectpr operty w as zoned f orC
- 2 orgener al comm er ci al devel opm ent . H ow ever , he opi ned thatdes pi t e the zoni ng r es tr i ct i ons , the highestand t he bes tus e of the r emai ni ng property w as f

or r estri ct ed co m m erci al dev el op m ent. D uri ng T row bri dg e’s cross

### 3

exami nat i on of W el l s , he expl ai ned “thatt he r emai ni ng prope r ty w oul d onl y be deve l oped
as r es tr i ct ed comm er ci al [ devel opm ent ] f or[ an] of

f i ce bui l di ng ora dent i s tof f i ce or[ a] b a rb e r sh o p b e c a u se it l a c k s a c c e ss [to ] a h e a v ily -tra v e led ro a d .” W e lls o p in e d th a t th e fa ir
m arketval ue of

the ent i r e 8. 45 acr es i m m edi at el y bef or e the t aki ng w as $1, 582, 800, and that the val ue of the rem ai ning property i m m ediat el y aft er the t aking w as $631 , 2 0 0 , for a d if fe re n c e o f $ 9 5 1 ,6 0 0 to ta l c o m p e n s a tio n d u e to T ro w b ri d g e . ¶4. A t the concl us i on of W el l s ’ s t es t i m ony, T r ow br i dge m oved t o s tr i ke hi s t es t i m ony r egar di ng the val uat i on of the s ubj ectpr operty on tw o gr ounds . Fi r s t , T r ow br i dge cont ended that W ell s’s t esti m o n y reg ard ing th e g en era l app raisal gu ideline th at sm all er p arc els are
w or th m or e pers quar e f ooti m pr oper l y enhanc ed the f ai rm arketval ue of t he r emai nder pr operty. Secondl y, T r ow br i dge as s ert ed thatW el l s i m pr operl y di s r egar ded the zoni ng r es tr i ct i ons w hen det erm i ni ng the hi ghes tand bes tus e of the r emai nderpr operty. ¶ 5 . T h e trial c o u rt j u d g e d e n ied T ro w b rid g e ’s m o tio n . T h e trial c o u rt ru led th a t W e lls d id notof f erany t es t i m ony s t at i ng thatthe r emai ni ng pr oper ty w oul d be enha nced by the hi ghw ay expa ns i on pr oj ect . T he cour tfurtherconcl uded t hatW el l s t es t i f i ed onl y as t o t he gener al appr ai s al rul e w hen det erm i ni ng the val ue of sm al l erpar cel s of

l and. L as t l y, t he
courtconcl uded thatthe C om m i s s i on had no r equi r ementt o est abl i s h a pot ent i al zoni ng ch an g e, be ca u se C -1 re str ict ed co m m erc ial d ev elop m en t i s a lesse r i n clud ed u se o f C -2 g e n e ra l c o m m e rc ia l d e v e lo p m e n t. ¶6. T he appr ai s erf

orTr ow br i dge, H ugh H ogue, of f er ed hi s op i nion t hat, becau s e the
re m a in d e r p ro p e rty w a s z o n e d fo r C -2 d e v e lo p m e n t, th e h ig h e st a n d b e st u se o f th e p ro p e rty
w as f orr et ai l comm er ci al devel opm ent . H ogue f ur thert es t i f

i ed thatthe f

ai rm arketval ue of

### 4

the 8. 45 acr es i m m edi at el y bef or e the t aki ng w as $2, 208, 492 and thatthe val ue of t he
r emai ni ng pr operty i m m edi at el y af t erthe t aki ng w as $286, 189, f ora di f f er ence of $ 1 ,9 2 2 ,3 0 3 to ta l c o m p e n s a tio n d u e to T ro w b ri d g e . ¶ 7 . A fte r h e a rin g th e e v id e n c e a n d v iew in g th e p ro p e rt y , th e ju ry re tu rn e d a v e rd ict in f avorof T r ow br i dge i n the amountof $1, 108, 941 as j us tcompensa t i on. T r ow br i dge f i l ed a mot i on f

orJ udgm entN otw i ths t andi ng the V er di ct( JN O V ) , w i th al t ernat i ve mot i ons f or A m en d m en t o f Jud g m en t, o r a N ew T ri al an d A d d itu r. T h e tri al co u rtd en ied T row b ri d g e’s
mo t i o n s . T r o wb r i d g e f

i l e d a t i me l y n o t i c e o f

a p p e a l . On a p p e a l , T r o wb r i d g e r a i s e s two issue s: ( 1 ) W h ethe r th e tria l cou rterred in allow ing the C o m m issi o n ’s ex p ert ap p raiser, W el l s , i n hi s val uat i on t o cons i derbenef i t s conf err ed on the r emai nderpr operty by t he t a ki ng ; a nd ( 2) W he the rthe tr i a l c ou r te rr e d i n a l l owi ng W e l l s t o t e s t i f y tha t , a l tho ug h t he
r emai nderpr operty i s zoned f orC
- 2 gener al comm er ci al devel opm ent , the l es s eri ncl uded
us e of C
- 1 r es tr i ct ed comm er ci al devel opm entw as the hi ghes tand bes tus e of the pr oper ty. DI S CU S S I ON ¶8. G ener al l y, the admi s s i on or excl us i on of expert t es t i m ony i s w i thi n the di s cr et i on of th e tr ia l ju d g e . T

er r ian E nter. v. Mockbee , 6 5 4 S o . 2 d 1 1 2 2 , 1 1 2 8 (M iss. 1 9 9 5 ). H o w ev er, “[ w ] her e a c our tha s e xer ci s ed i t s di s cr et i onary a uthor i ty i n s uch a w ay thati tm i s per cei ves the corr ectl egal s t andar d f oradmi t t i ng the evi dence , the def er ence c us t om ar i l y af

f or ded tr i al
court s i n deci s i ons conce r ni ng the admi s s i bi l i ty of e vi dence i s pr ecl uded, be caus e the err or has become one of

l aw . ” Mis s . T

r ansp. Com m ’n v. Fir es , 693 S o. 2d 917, 920 ( M i s s . 1997) ( ci t i ng B ean v. B rou ssard , 587 So. 2d 908, 913 ( M i s s . 1991) ) . T hi s C our t“w i l l r ever s e f or err oneous i nt erpr et at i on orappl i cat i ons of the l aw . ” B a n ks o

f Miss . v. Ho llin g w o rth , 609 So.

### 5

2d 422, 424 ( M i s s . 1992) . E vi dent i ary obj ect i ons w hi ch concern the appr opr i at e l egal stan d ard to ap p ly w h en d eterm ining the v alue o f p rop erty in e m inen t do m ain p roc ee d ing s are q u e s t i o n s o f

l a w. Fir es , 693 So. 2d at920. I . W h eth er th e T rial C o u rt E r r e d in A llo w in g th e C o m m issi o n ’s E xpert A pprai s er, T erry W el l s, D u ri n g h i s D eter m i nat i on of V al ue, t o Cons i de r Bene f

i t s Conf e r r e d o n t he R e m ai nde r Pro pe r t y by t he T aki ng. ¶9 . T row b ri d g e a rgu es that W ell s’s testi m o n y tha t sm all er p arc els o f l an d are w o rth m o re p er sq u are foo t enh an ce d th e v alue of th e tw o rem ainin g pa rce ls. T row b ri d g e cit es tw o erro rs i n s uppor tof

i t s pos i t i on. F i r s t , T r ow br i dge al l eges thatthe tr i al courtcomm i t t ed err orby al l ow i ng W el l s t o m ake adj us t m ent s t o t he com par abl e sa l es used t o det erm i ne t he val ue of t he pr operty bef

or e the t aki ng, w hen he di d notmake any a dj us t m ent s t o the compar abl e s al es us ed to d eterm ine th e v alue of th e rem ainin g pro p erty. T h e im p rop er a d justm en ts en h an ce d the p ersq u a re-fo o t v alue of th e tw o rem ainin g pa rce ls. S ec o n d , T row b ri d g e claim s th at W e lls i m pr oper l y r educe d T r ow br i dge’ s aw ar d of damages by the al l eged e nhance d value o f the
re m a in in g p a rc e ls . ¶10. I n Mis s is s i

ppiState H

i ghw ay Com m is s i on v. H ancock , the C om m i s s i on condemned th e la n d o w n e rs ’ p ro p e rt y o n b o th s id e s o f H ig h w a y 4 9 , to w id e n it to fo u r l a n e s . Mis s is s i ppi State H i ghw ay Com m is s i on v. H ancock , 309 S o. 2d 867 ( M i s s . 1975) . T he C om m i s s i on con t end ed thatthe h i gh w ay ex p an sion p roj ectenh anced the v al ue o f the lando w ners’
re m a in in g p ro p e rt y . Id . at871 . A f t erthe t aki ng, the l andow ner s ’ r emai ni ng l and, al though pr evi ous l y cl as s i f

i ed by the C om m i s s i on as f arm l and, w as now al s o s ui t abl e and adapt abl e f or re s id e n tia l p ro p e rt y . Id . “T hus , [ the C om m i s s i on cont ended that ] the l andow ner s w i l l s t i l l have

### 6

as m uch r es i dent i al prope r ty as they had bef or e the t aki ng. ” Id . T he C om m i s s i on s oughtt o s et o ff th e v a lu e o f th e e n h a n c e m e n t fro m th e v a lu e o f th e lan d tak e n . T h is C o u rt h e ld th a t: T he rule i n t hi s s t at e i s thatw hen a pa r tof a l ar gertr actof

l and i s t aken f

or p u b lic u se , the o w n e rs s h o u ld b e a w a rd e d th e d iffe re n c e b e tw e e n th e fa ir m a rk e t v a lu e o f th e w h o le tra c t im m e d iate ly b e fo re th e ta k in g a n d th e fa ir m arketval ue of

t he r emai ning p roperty i m m edi at el y af t erthe t aki ng, w i thout c o n sid e rin g th e g e n e ra l b e n e fits o r in ju rie s to th e u se o f th e tak e n lan d . T h is rul e l eave s no r oom f

ora deduct i on forany enhanc ementof the r emai ni ng l and due t o the natur e of

the f aci l i ty t o be bui l ton the l and t aken. Fur therm or e, the lan d o w n e r is e n tit led to d u e co m p e n sa tio n n o t on ly fo r th e v a lu e o f th e p ro p e rty actual l y t aken, butal s o f orthe damages , i f

any, w hi ch may r es ul tt o the l andow neras a cons equenc e of the t aki ng w i thoutany deduc t i on ther ef r om on acc ountof

any s uppos ed bene f

i t s i nci dentt o publ i c us e f orw hi ch the a p p lic a tio n is m a d e . H ancock , 309 So. 2d at871 ( ci t i ng P ear l R i verW aterS uppl

y D is t . v. W ood , 172 So. 2d 196 (M iss. 1 9 6 5 )). ¶11. I n Missi

ssipp i T ra n sp o rtatio n Co m m issio n v . B rid g fo rth , th is C o u rt re itera ted its pr evi ous hol di ng i n H

ancock , thatexpertappr ai s er s m ay nots eek t o s etof f the val ue of

t he
e n h a n c e m e n t fr o m th e v a lu e o f t h e la n d ta k e n . Miss . T ra n sp . Co m m ’n v. B rid g fo rth , 709 So. 2d 430 ( M i s s . 1998) . I n B rid g fo rth , th e C o m m iss io n as se rte d th a t th e lan d o w n e rs’ p ro p e rty i n the “aft er” con dit i on w as st i l l sui t able f or hi gh i ntensi ty co m m erci al pu rposes, al tho ug h les s o f t h e la n d w a s a v a ila b le fo r l a rg e -s c a le d e v e lo p m e n t. Id
. at440. T hi s C our thel d thatt he C om m i s s i on’ s ar gum entw as e s s ent i al l y the s ame as i n H ancock . Id . A cc o rdin g ly, th e C o u rt
ru le d a g a in s t th e C o m m is s io n . Id .a t 4 4 0 -4 1 . ¶12. U nl i ke t he exp ertap prai ser s i n H ancockand B rid

g fo rth , W el l s gave no t es t i m ony sta tin g th a t th e v a lu e o f th e re m a in d e r p a rc e ls w a s e n h a n c e d b y th e tak in g . W e lls tes tified o n ly th a t sm a ller p a rc e ls a re w o rth m o re p e r sq u a re f o o t th a n lar g e r p a rc e ls. T h is C o u rt h a s h e ld

### 7

th a t siz e , u se , loc a tio n , top o g ra p h y , an d o th e r, li k e fa c to rs d e te rm in e th e v a lu e o f la n d in
e m in e n t d o m a in p ro c e e d in g s . S a n derso n Fa rm s v. Miss. H igh w a y C o m m ’n , 324 So. 2d 243, 244 (M i s s . 1975). A ddi t i onal l y, thi s C our ti n Miss. H i gh w ay Com m ’n v. H

arvard , als o h e ld th a t: the fai r m arketvalue of the rem ai nd er of the prope rty fol l ow i ng the taki ng i s a m att erof comm on s ens e [ s i c] a produc tof the i nf l uence thatnum er ous s peci f i cs r es pect i ng the t aki ng m ay hav e i n the mar ketpl ace . A ccor di ngl y, w i tnes s es m ay t es t i f

y conce r ni ng any s peci f i c qual i ty, i t em or c hange i n the pr operty or its a ttr ibu tes, so lon g as th is i s u lt im ately re lat ed to the v alue o f th e p rop erty r emai ni ng af

t erthe t aki ng. Missi ssi pp iH i gh w ay C om m ission v. H arvard , 508 So. 2d 1099 at1101 ( ci t i ng W ade B ap tist Ch u rch v. Miss. H

igh w a y C o m m ’n , 469 So. 2d 1241, 1245 ( M i s s . 1985)) . W el l s ’ s t es t i m ony thats m al l erpar cel s ar e w or th m or e pers quar e f ootw as r el evantt o the i s s ue of the f ai rm arket val ue o f t he r emai nderpr operty. B eca us e ther e i s no evi dence thatW el l s t es t i f i ed thatt he hi ghw ay expa ns i on pr oj ectw oul d enhanc e the val ue of the r emai nderpr operty or thathe
r educe d hi s as s es s m entof compensa t i on by the al l eged e nhance m ent s , and f orthe r eas ons d isc u ss e d b e lo w , T ro w b rid g e ’s a rg u m e n ts a re w ith o u t m e rit.

### 8

A . A dj ust m ent s f

or s i z e t o t he com parabl e s al es ¶13. W el l s consi der ed se ven com par abl e sal es , w i th si m i l arqual i t i es t o the s al e i n ques t i on, t o det erm i ne the f

ai rm arketval ue of

t he pr operty. W el l s m ade pos i t i ve adj us t m ent s f ors i ze t o the com par abl e s al es thati nvol ved l ar gertr act s of l and than the conde m ned pr operty. H ow ever , i n hi s det erm i nat i on of t he val ue of

t he r emai nderprope r ty, W el l s re l i ed s ol el y upon the compar abl e s al es t hatw er e s i m i l arin si ze t o the r emai ni ng par cel s . H e di d notcons i der the compar abl e s al es i nvol vi ng l ar gertr act s of l and, so he di d notm ake a dj us t m ent s f ors i ze. T r ow br i dge al l eges thatthe courte r r ed i n a l l ow i ng W el l s t o m ake a dj us t m ent s f ors i ze t o t he compar abl e s al es dur i ng hi s det erm i nat i on of val ue of the pr operty bef

or e the t aki ng, w hen he di d notm ake a ny adj us t m ent s f orsi ze to t he com par abl e s al es dur i ng hi s det erm i nat i on of val ue of the r e mai ni ng p r op e r ty. A c c or di ng t o Tr owbr i dg e , W e l l s ’ s a dj us t ment s t o t he compar abl e s al es us ed t o det erm i ne the f ai rm arketval ue of

the prop erty bef

or e the t aki ng im p ro p e rly e n h a n c e d th e fa ir m a rk e t v a lu e o f th e re m a in in g p a rc e ls. T ro w b rid g e ’s a rg u m e n ts
a re w ith o u t m e ri t. ¶ 1 4 . C o m p a ra b le sa les m u st r e late to a n d p o ss e ss s im ila r q u a lit ies to th e la n d in v o lv e d in th e s a le . Mis s . Trans

p. Com m ’n v. Fir es , 693 So. 2d 917, 923 ( ci t i ng Miss. H igh w a y C o m m ’n
v. D ani el , 108 So. 2d 854 (M i ss. 1 959) ) . M or eover , r ecogni zi ng the di f f i cul ty i n f

i ndi ng compar abl e r eal e s t at e tr ans act i ons w i th s i m i l ars i ze, l ocat i on, t opogr aphy, a nd otherl i ke f act or s , thi s C our tal l ow s appr ai s er s t o m ake adj us t m ent s t o compar abl e s al es t o det erm i ne the
v a lu e o f t h e s u b

je c t p ro p e rt y in e m in e n t d o m a in p ro c e e d in g s . See Fir es , 6 93 So . 2 d a t923, B rid g fo rth , 709 So. 2d at433. T her ef or e, t he t r i al cour tdi d noter ri n al l ow i ng W el l s dur i ng

### 9

hi s det erm i nat i on of

val ue of t he r emai nderpr operty t o cons i deronl y the compar abl e s al es si m i l ar i n si ze t o the r em ai ning parcel s. B. D e duc t i ons f

r om j us t c om pe ns at i on f or t he e nhanc e d va l ue of t he re m a inin g p ro p er ty . ¶1 5. I n H

ancockand B rid

g fo rth , the Comm i s s i on ’ s e xp e r ta pp r a i s er s as s er t ed t hat t he
v a lu e o f t h e re m a in in g p ro p e rt y w a s e n h a n c e d b y th e ta k in g . H ancock , 309 So. 2d at870. B rid g fo rth , 70 9 S o. 2d at44 0. T he ex p ert ap p raiser s al so con t end ed thatthe lando w ners’ d a m a g e s s h o u ld b e r e d u c e d b y th e e n h a n c e d v a lu e o f th e re m a in in g p ro p e rt y . H ancock , 309 S o . 2 d a t 8 7 0 ; B rid

g fo rth , 709 So. 2d a t440. H ow ever , i n both H ancock and B r id

g fo r th , th is C our thel d thatexpertappr ai s er s m ay no tco nsi derthe enha nced va l ue of the r emai ni ng p ro p e rt y w h e n d e te rm in in g its fa irm a rk e t v a lu e . H ancock , 3 0 9 S o . 2 d a t 8 7 0 ; B rid g fo rth , 709 So. 2d at440. I n thi s cas e, t he C om m i s s i on’ s exper tappr ai s ergave no t es t i m ony r eques t i ng thatT r ow bri dg e’ s damages be r educe d by the enha nced va l ue of the r emai ni ng pr operty. M or eover , the j udge i ns truct ed the j ur or s nott o cons i dera ny enhanc ement s conf err ed on the pr operty by the t aki ng. ¶ 1 6 . D e sp ite th e lac k o f ev id e n c e to su p p o rt T ro w b ri d g e ’s c la im , it a lle g e s th a t W e lls t es t i f i ed thatther e w er e var i ous da m ages t o the r emai nderpr operty. B eca us e W el l s concl uded thatthe per
- acr e val ue of the r emai nderpr operty w as the s ame bef or e the t aki ng a nd a f

t erthe t aki ng, T r ow br i dge f

i nds er r orw i th hi s ass es s m entof compensa t i on. T r ow br i dge as s ert s t hat W el l s ’ s as s es s m entof

compensa t i on di d notacc ountf oral l of the al l eged da m ages t o t he
r emai nd er property. T r ow br i dge di r ect s thi s C our t ’ s att ent i on t o W el l s ’ s t es t i m ony and expl anat i on of

hi s opi ni on as t o t he val ue of the r emai nderpr operty.

### 10

Q . W hati s thatopi ni on? A . I tw as the s ame as the val ue i n the bef or e, $4. 30. Q . A n d I’d lik e to p o in t o u t th a t alth o u g h w e ’re talk in g a b o u t th e p ro p e rty i n the bef

or e and the pr operty i n the af t erbei ng tw o di f

f er ents i zes , the p ro p e rty in the after be ing a lot sm all er tha n the b efo re, I ’m sti ll i ndi cat i ng the s ame val ue pers quar e f oot ; butyou have a “di f f er ent s c e n a ri o ” in th e a ft e r a s y o u d id in th e b e fo re . Q . M r. W el l s, did you t ake int o co nsi derat i on the ch ang e i n the access from 5 1 as o p p o sed to the b efo re a n d the a ft er? A . Y es , I di d. Q . A l l ri ght . N ow w hati f any otherdamage di d you det erm i ne the l andow nerw er e [ s i c] due? A . I n the bef

or e scenar i o, w e s ai d thatthi s pr operty had f r ont age of ap pr ox i mat e l y 11 00 f e e ttha tr a n a l on g H oy Roa d w her e any d ev elop m en t cou ld ac ce ss the av aila b il ity o f uti li ti es — w ater, e lec trica l, an d g a s – th a t w e re , y o u k n o w w ith in e a s e m e n t alo n g th is ri g h t o f w a y . (E m p h asis ad d ed ). ¶17. T r ow br i dge cont ends thatW el l s ’ s “ di f f er ents cena r i o” t es t i m ony s uppor t s i t s pos i t i on th a t h e d id n o t ac c o u n t fo r all th e d a m a g e s to th e re m a in d e r p ro p e rty a n d th a t h e re d u c e d h is
as s es s m entof

damages by the enhanc ed val ue of the r emai ni ng par cel s . H ow ever , T r ow br i dge take s W ell s’s “d if

feren t scen ario” test im o n y o u t of th e c o n text in w h ich it occ u rred . B efo re g iv in g h is a ss e ss m e n t o f c o m p e n sa tio n , W e lls e x p lain e d th a t h e re lied o n co m p a ra b le s a les to d e ter m in e th e fa ir m a rk e t v a lu e o f th e p ro p e rty . W e lls fu rth e r e x p lain e d e a c h c o m p a ra b le s a le and the adj us t m ent s m ade t o ens ur e thatthey w er e s i m i l ar t o t hi s s al e. I n eac h of t he

### 11

compar abl e s al es , W el l s m ade a pos i t i ve adj us t m entf orthe i rr egul arshape of the r emai ni ng p a rc e ls a n d th e a d d itio n a l c o s t o f d e v e lo p m e n t. ¶18. W el l s ’ s t es t i m ony regar ding the “d i ff erentscena ri o” i n t he befor e and the af t er condi t i on of

t he r emai ni ng pr operty r el at es t o the i rr egul ars hape of the par cel s and the i ncr eas ed deve l opm entcost . A l though W el l s di d notagr ee w i th T r ow br i dge r egar di ng t he
e x ten t o f th e d a m a g e s to th e re m a in d e r p ro p e rty , h e m a d e n o e rro r in tes tify in g th a t th e fa ir
m a rk e t v a lu e o f t h e r e m a in d e r p ro p e rt y w a s th e s a m e b e fo re a n d a ft e r t h e ta k in g . G r een A cr es Mem . P a rk v . Miss. H

igh w a y C o m m ’n , 246 M i s s . 855, 863, 153 So. 2d 286, 289- 90 ( 1963) ( hol di ng thatther e i s no r equi r ementi n emi nentdom ai n pr ocee di ngs thatan expe r tappr ai s er reg ard the tak ing as d am ag ing to the rem aind er). II. W h e th e r th e T rial C o u rt E rr ed in A ll o w ing th e C o m m issi o n ’s E xpert A pprai ser, T err y W el l s , t o T es t i f y t hat t he R em ai nder P ropert y i s Zoned f

or G eneralC om m erc i al D evel opm ent but t hat t he Les s e r I nc l uded U s e R es t ri ct ed C om m erc i al D e ve l opm e nt i s t he H i ghes t and B es t U s e of t he P ropert y. ¶19. T r ow br i dge ar gues thatW el l s i m pr oper l y di s r egar ded the zoni ng cl as s i f i cat i ons w hen det erm i ni ng t he hi ghes tand the bes tus e of the r emai nderpr opert y. T r ow br i dge r el i es on D e n n is v. City Co u n c il o f G re e n v ille , 646 S o. 2d 1290 ( M i s s . 1994) and Mis s is s i ppiH i ghw ay Com m is s i on v. W

agley , 2 3 1 S o . 2 d 5 0 7 , 5 0 9 (M iss . 1 9 7 0 ) to su p p o rt its a rg u m e n t th a t p ro p e rty
m us tbe eva l uat ed underthe exi s t i ng z on i ng r e s tr i c t i on s ; the r e f or e , T r ow br i dge as s ert s , the tr i al j ud ge err ed in al l ow i ng W el l s t o t est i fy that the highestand bestuse w as a l esseri ncluded use of r es tr i ct ed comm er ci al devel opm ent, w hen t he s ubj ectpr operty w as zoned f orgener al
comm er ci al de vel opm ent . T r ow br i dge al s o a r gues thatW el l s di d notpr ovi de any evidenc e

### 12

thata change in zon i ng w as l i kel y t o occur , and i ns t ead, act ed as i f the s ubj ectpr operty had
a lre a d y b e e n re z o n e d fo r re stric ted c o m m e rc ial d e v e lo p m e n t. ¶20. I n D e n n is v . City C o u n c il o f G re e n v ille , the C i ty’s app rai ser t est i fi ed that the h i gh est and bes tus e of

the pr opert y w as f

oragr i cul tur al devel opm ent , al though the zoni ng c las sific a tio n fo r th e p ro p e rty w a s fo r re sid e n tial d e v e lo p m e n t. D ennis v. Cit y Council

of G re e n v ille , 646 So. 2d 1290, 1291 ( M i s s . 1994). I n D e n n is , thi s Courtr ei t er at ed i t s hol di ng in Mis s is s i

ppiH i ghw ay Com m is s i on v. W agley thatpr operty i n emi nentdom ai n pr ocee di ngs m us tbe eva l uat ed i n acc or dance w i th the r estr i ct i ons of exi s t i ng zoni ng cl as s i f i cat i ons , and th a t co n sid e ra tio n m u st b e g iv e n to th e im p a c t po ten tial zo n in g ch a n g e s m a y h a v e o n th e fa ir
m a rk e t v a lu e o f t h e s u b

je c t p ro p e rt y . D e n n is , 646 So. 2d at1294 ( ci t i ng W agley , 231 So. 2d 507, 509 ( M i s s . 1970) ) . T hi s C our tf ur therhel d thatthe tr i al j udg e d i sr egar ded the exi s t i ng
z o n in g re s tr ic tio n s . Id . T he C i ty’ s appr ai s ereval uat ed the l and underthe r es t ri ct i ons of
a g ri c u ltu ra l d e v e lo p m e n t, a lth o u g h th e p ro p e r ty w a s z o n e d fo r r e s id e n tia l d e v e lo p m e n t. Id . T hi s C our tconcl uded thateven i f t her e w as a pot ent i al change of the zoni ng cl as s i f

i cat i on of the l andow ner s ’ pr operty f r om r es i dent i al t o agri cul tur al devel opm ent , the C i ty’ s appr ai s er eval uat ed the pr operty as i f the r ezoni ng had al r eady oc curr ed, w hen no s uch cha nged had
o c c u rr e d . Id . ¶21. C l ear l y, thi s i s notthe s ame f actual s i tuat i on as the pr es entcas e. T r ow br i dge’ s r el i ance on D e n n is i s mi s pl ace d f ortw o r eas ons . Fi r s t , i n contr as tt o D en n is, the C o m m issi o n ’s ex p ert appr ai s er , W el l s , di d notconcl ude t hatt he hi ghes tand bestuse of the pr operty w as a pot ent i al
us e not al l ow ed by the ex ist i ng zon i ng r es tr i ct i ons . I ns t ead, W el l s opi ned that , al though t he pr operty w as zoned f

orC
- 2 gener al comm er ci al d evel opm ent , the hi ghes tand bes tus e of

### 13

p ro p e rty w a s fo r C -1 re stric ted c o m m e rc ial d e v e lo p m e n t, a les se r in c lu d e d u se o f p ro p e rty
z o n e d fo r g e n e ra l c o m m e rc ia l d e v e lo p m e n t. ¶22. Second, unl i ke thi s cas e, the tr i al courti n D e n n is r ef us ed t o cons i der the val uat i on of th e la n d o w n e r’ s a p p ra is e rs . D e n n is , 6 4 6 S o . 2 d a t 1 2 9 3 . T h e C o u rt sta ted : [T ] h e tri al co u rt , by no t all o w ing th e lan d o w n ers t o pu t the testi m o n y o f ex p ert app rai ser s i nto evi de n ce reg ardi ng sal es of l ots forsi ng l e-f am i l y resi den ces, ther eby pr event ed the l andow ner s f r om sub s t ant i at i ng thei rval uat i on and appr ai s al s w i th compar abl es . C ons equent l y, the l andow ner s ' evi dence , w hi ch w oul d have pr ovi ded an a l t ernat i ve val uat i on f orc ons i der at i on and w hi ch may have r ef ut e d the Ci ty' s va l ua t i on t e s t i m ony w hi ch w as s uppor t ed by compar abl es o f d is ta n t a g ri c u ltu ra l s a le s , w a s e x c lu d e d fr o m e v id e n c e b y th e tr ia l ju d g e . I d . I n the pr es entcas e, the t es t i m ony of T r ow br i dge’ s expertappr ai s erthatthe be stu se of the subj ectpropert y w as r et ai l c o m m erc ial use w as al l ow ed . T h e re fo re , v a lu a tio n s b y b o th p a rties ’ ex p e rt ap p ra ise rs w e re ad m itt e d to b e co n sid e re d b y the jur o rs in rea c h in g th e ir d e c is io n . ¶23. F urt her, t hi s C our t ’ s di s cus s i on of expertval uat i on t es t i m ony i n P o tter s I I v . S ta te H igh w a y C o m m ’n is p a rt ic u la rl y re le v a n t to M r. W e ll’ s te s tim o n y in th is c a s e . P otters I I v. State Hi gh w ay C om m is s i on , 608 So. 2d 1227, 1233 ( M i s s . 1992) T he C our ti n P otters I I sta ted : O f

t e nt i mes pa rt i e s t o e mi ne ntdo mai n p r oc e e di ng s pr ocee d w i thi n br oad, gener al us e ca t egor i es and t al k of comm er ci al use and r es i dent i al use a nd the l i ke. See, e. g. , How el

l v. State H

i ghw ay Com m is s i on of

Mis s is s i ppi , 573 So. 2d 754, 755 (M iss . 1 9 9 0 ); D

ykes v. State H

i ghw ay Com m is s i on of

Mis s is s i ppi , 535 So. 2d 1 3 4 9 , 1 3 5 1 (M is s . 1 9 8 8 ). O n o th e r o c c a s io n s , noti nappr opr i at el y, thes e br oad cat egor i es a r e narr ow ed s o thata hi ghes tand bes tus e f ora gi ven pr operty m ay be for m ult i -f

am i l y resi den ces as di st i ng uis hed fr om si ng l e-f am i l y d w el l i ng s, s ee, e. g. , Hu d

sp e th v. S ta te Hig h w a

y Co m m is s io n o

f Miss iss ip

p i, 534 So. 2d 210, 211 ( M i s s . 1988) . W i thi n comm er ci al pr opert i es , ther e ar e many use s of

### 14

d if fe ri n g v a lu e s . Fr anklin Count y Tim ber t al ks of saw m i l l i ng as the m ost pr of i t abl e us e. W e thi nk i tf ai ron the pr es entf

act s thatexpertval uat i on t est i m on y m ay assum e the highestand bestuse of subjectproperty w as as a f ast foo d restau ran t. W e sa y this no tw ith stan d ing that M S H C A p p raiser P ri tcha rd lim ite d h im s e lf

to th e b ro a d e r c h a ra c te ri z a tio n : c o m m e rc ia l. O bvi ous l y, the extent t o w hi ch the cat egor i es ar e nar r ow ed is a m at t erof pr of es s i onalj udgm ent a n d , w ith in lim its, ex

p e rts m a y g ive th e ir o

p in io n re g a rd in gth e a

p p ro p ria te lev e l o f sp e c ifi c ity . (E m p h a s is a d d e d ). I d. A ccor di ngl y, w e f

i nd thatW el l ’ s t es t i m ony thata l esserincl ud ed us e of the exi s t i ng
z on i ng r e s tr i c t i on s w a s the hi gh e s ta nd be s tus e of pr op e r ty f

orpu rpo s e s of

val uat i on w as perm i s s i bl e. B eca us e W el l s eval uat ed the s ubj ectpr operty i n acc or dance w i th the l egal par amet er s of

t he exi s t i ng zoni ng r es tr i ct i ons , ther e w as no r equi r ementt hatany cons i der at i on s h o u ld h a v e b e e n g iv e n to p o te n tia l z o n in g c h a n g e s . CO NC L US I ON ¶2 4. T he t r i al cour t di d no t e r r i n de ny i ng Tr owbr i dg e ’ s mot i on t o s tr i ke the t e s t i mony of W e lls, the C o m m iss io n ’s e x p e rt a p p ra ise r. W h e re th e tes tim o n y o f th e e x p e rt a p p ra ise rs is
c o m p e ten t an d re lev a n t, th e ju ry h a s th e re sp o n sib ili ty o f co n sid e rin g th e w e ig h t an d c re d ib ili ty o f t h e irte s tim o n y . H

anc ock , 309 So. 2d at870. W el l s i s a compet entexpertappr ai s er , and his t est i m on y regardi ng the fai r m arketval ue of the prope rty w as r el evan tt o the i ssue of j ust compensa t i on. T he j ury eval uat ed the w ei ghtand cr edi bi l i ty o f W el l s ’ s t es t i m ony and r etur ned
a ver di cti n f

avorof T r ow br i dge i n t he am ountof $1, 108, 941. T hi s C our thas a l ong- s t andi ng h ist o ry o f no t distu rbin g jury v erd ict s in em inen t d o m ain p roc ee d ing s, esp ec ial ly w h en th e jury has vi ew ed the pr operty be i ng t aken and the evi dence i n the r ecor d s uppor t s the j ury’ s f i ndi ng. Miss. H i gh w ay C om m ’n v. H

arvard , 508 S o. 2d 1099, 1105 ( M i s s 1987) ( ci t i ng Miss. H i ghway Com m ’n v. Fra nkl in Count y Tim be rCo. , I

nc . , 4 8 8 S o . 2 d 78 2 , 78 7 (M iss. 1 9 8 6 )).

### 15

Si nce the j ury had the opportuni ty t o vi ew the pr operty, and i t s f i ndi ngs ar e s uppor t ed by the
re c o rd , this C o u rt a ffirm s th e ju d g m e n t o f th e trial c o u rt. ¶ 2 5 . AFF I RM ED . W A L L E R , P .J ., E A S L E Y , C A R L S O N , D I C K I N S O N A N D R A N D O L P H , J J ., C O N C U R . D I A Z , J ., C O N C U R S I N R E S U L T O N L Y . C O B B , P .J ., A N D G R A V E S , J ., NO T P AR T I CI P AT I NG .