Opinion ID: 1913355
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 24

Heading: Did the trial court properly assess the taxation of costs against City?

Text: City argues that the trial court erred in assessing the taxation of costs. Taxation of costs in condemnation proceedings under eminent domain is controlled by SDCL 21-35-23, which provides: If the amount of compensation awarded to the defendant by final judgment in proceedings pursuant to this chapter is twenty percent greater than the plaintiff's final offer which shall be filed with the court having jurisdiction over the action at the time trial is commenced, and if that total award exceeds seven hundred dollars, the court shall, in addition to such taxable costs as are allowed by law, allow reasonable attorney fees and compensation for not more than two expert witnesses, all as determined by the court. (Emphasis supplied.) It is a fundamental rule of statutory construction that all provisions within a statute must be given effect, if possible. Hartpence v. Youth Forestry Camp, 325 N.W.2d 292 (S.D.1982). Statutes are to be construed by their intent as determined from the statute as a whole and its enactments. Brishky v. State, 479 N.W.2d 489 (S.D.1991). City's final offer to Kelleys, which was filed prior to trial, was $139,000 and the jury ultimately returned a verdict for $450,000; thus, the requirement that the award be twenty percent greater than the plaintiff's final offer is met. City argues that the trial court erroneously assessed as costs a sum in excess of $7,000 as expert witness fees for Kelleys. City claims that expert witness fees are limited by SDCL 19-5-1 pursuant to Wolken v. Bunn, 422 N.W.2d 417 (S.D.1988). In Wolken, this court restricted the award of expert witness fees to the statutory limit set out in SDCL 19-5-1. That statute limits a witness' compensation to $20 a day and $.21 per mile. However, Wolken is dissimilar to the case before us. In Wolken, the award of expert witness fees was through the discretionary provisions of SDCL ch. 19-15. Therefore, any award of expert witness fees was limited by the constraints of SDCL 19-5-1. This case is a condemnation case which falls squarely within the provisions of SDCL ch. 21-35. [8] SDCL 21-35-23 specifically awards compensation for not more than two expert witnesses. Assessing the expert witness fees as costs is required and is not an abuse of discretion provided the fees are reasonable. The record does not indicate whether the trial court determined that these expert witness fees were reasonable. City of Winner v. Bechtold Investments, 488 N.W.2d 416 (S.D.1992). Therefore, we remand to the trial court for a determination and assessment of reasonable expert witness fees. City also claims the trial court incorrectly assessed as costs the sum of $243.82 for photographs and an enlarged map of the condemned area. In State Highway Comm., 82 S.D. at 45, 140 N.W.2d at 689-90, this court denied expenses for obtaining photographs. We held, to allow the expense of obtaining photographs to be taxed against an unsuccessful litigant might open the door to a `pandora's box' with wide variations between circuits and judges within the same circuit as to what is allowable and in what amount. Id. Although the statute for assessing miscellaneous costs has been repealed since the time of trial, [9] it is our opinion that the sum of $243.82 for photographs and maps used at the trial should not have been taxed as costs against City and this amount is disallowed and must be deducted from the final judgment.