Opinion ID: 2525241
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 7

Heading: Assessment of Damages by the Appraisers

Text: [¶ 32] The appraisers/viewers (appraisers) received legal instructions on the manner in which they were to determine the damages. These instructions were a blend of the law from the private taking and eminent domain cases. Mr. Mayland specifically requested an instruction be given that included the eminent domain compensation standard of Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 1-26-702(b) (LexisNexis 2001): (b) If there is a partial taking of property, the measure of compensation is the greater of the value of the property rights taken or the amount by which the fair market value of the entire property immediately before the taking exceeds the fair market value of the remainder immediately after the taking.[ [1] ] The instruction was given to the appraisers on two separate occasions. [2] Mr. Mayland now contends the appraisers' final conclusion was invalid because it failed to properly set out the before and after values as required by Lindt for private road applications. To resolve this issue, we must determine whether the appraisers applied the proper compensation formula and whether there actually is a difference between the compensation formulas of the private road and the eminent domain statutes. [¶ 33] The private road and eminent domain statutes find a common genesis in Article 1, Sections 32 and 33 of the Wyoming Constitution. Sections 24-9-101 to -104; Wyo. Stat. Ann. §§ 1-26-501 to -815 (Lexis-Nexis 2001). Article 1, Section 32 (emphasis added) mandates that Private property shall not be taken ... without due compensation.  [3] Article 1, Section 33 (emphasis added) provides that Private property shall not be taken ... without just compensation.  [4] This court has previously determined the concepts of due and just compensation mean: [A]n equivalent in money for all property taken. Wyoming State. Highway Commission v. Scrivner, [641 P.2d 735 (Wyo. 1982)]; Wyoming Railway Company v. Leiter, 25 Wyo. 286, 290, 169 P. 1, 2 (1917). It is the value of property at the time acquired and that means full value; regardless of how such value is reached, it must be fair to the condemnor as well as the owner of the property taken. This has been expressed in judicial declarations that the compensation paid should be the market value, or sometimes stated, the fair market value, cash market value, fair cash market value, or reasonable cash market value. Regardless of the label, embellished one way or the other, market value seems to be the most frequently applied tool to reach just compensation. 4 Nichols on Eminent Domain, § 12.1 3rd ed. 1981. Coronado Oil Company v. Grieves, 642 P.2d 423, 433 (Wyo.1982). No difference in meaning exists between the terms due compensation and just compensation. [¶ 34] Despite their common genesis, we have held private road applications and eminent domain condemnations are completely separate procedural remedies arising under distinct and unrelated statutes. Coronado Oil Company v. Grieves, 603 P.2d 406, 412 (Wyo.1979). The question remains whether these two discrete yet consistent cumulative remedies result in the same formula for computation of just compensation. Id. We conclude the answer must be in the affirmative. [¶ 35] In 1995 when the Flitner private road application was filed, § 24-9-101 (emphasis added) provided for damages in relevant part as follows: Any person whose land has no outlet to, nor connection with a public road, may apply in writing to the board of county commissioners of his county for a private road leading from his premises to some convenient public road.... [I]f the board finds that the applicant has complied with the law and that the private road is necessary, the board shall appoint three (3) disinterested freeholders and electors of the county, as viewers and appraisers, and shall cause an order to be issued directing them to meet on a day named in the order on the proposed road, and view and locate a private road according to the application therefor, and to assess damages to be sustained thereby .... The viewers shall then proceed to locate and mark out a private road in accordance with the application or in such other manner and location they deem appropriate .... The proposed road ... shall be located so as to do the least possible damage to the lands through which the private road is located. The extent of the damages authorized by § 24-9-101 is controlled by the constitutional mandate of Article 1, Sections 32 and 33 of the Wyoming Constitution. Therefore, in the context of this specific statute, the word damages must be synonymous with the concept of just compensation. This provision was interpreted in Lindt and reemphasized in Miller, 4 P.3d at 888-89, approximately three months after the County Commissioners' decision in this matter to require: [A]ny damages must be assessed in accordance with Lindt v. Murray, 895 P.2d 459, 463 (Wyo.1995). That is, the viewers and appraisers must: first, determine the value of the property over which the road crosses before the private road is established; second, determine the value of the property over which the road crosses after the private road is established; and third, subtract the after value from the before value, which equals the damages due the owners of land over which the road crosses. In applying this formula, the viewers and appraisers are to determine the before and after value only of those lands over which the private road crosses; not, as the Burkhalters argue, the before and after value of all surrounding lands affected by the proposed road. [¶ 36] During the 2000 legislative session, § 24-9-101 was amended to incorporate the before and after test: (j) In determining any damages to be suffered by the owner or owners of the lands through which the access shall be provided, the viewers and appraisers shall appraise the value of the property before and after the road is in place. Damages also may include reasonable compensation for any improvements on the lands over which any private road is to be granted which were not paid for and will be used by the applicant. Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 24-9-101(j) (LEXIS 2000). In contrast, the eminent domain statute applicable to compensation for a partial taking reads as follows: (b) If there is a partial taking of property, the measure of compensation is the greater of the value of the property rights taken or the amount by which the fair market value of the entire property immediately before the taking exceeds the fair market value of the remainder immediately after the taking. Section 1-26-702(b) (emphasis added). At first glance, it would appear the statutory provisions supply different formulas for computation of just compensation. However, on closer examination, we conclude the valuation factors and ultimate computations are the same. Both statutes contemplate partial takings of propertynot entire takings. Both also provide the before and after test. The only distinction is that § 1-26-702(b) also provides the damages are either the greater of the value of the property rights taken or the result of the before and after test. [¶ 37] The phrase the greater of the value of the property rights taken is a codification of the severance damage rule. The severance damage rule is stated as measuring the value of the part taken (recognizing its value as a part of a whole) plus those damages occasioned to the remainder (measuring its pre-taking value as a part of a whole). Under this attempt to evaluate compensation, the trier seeks to value the number of acres in fact taken, including such improvements as they existed in the pre-taking condition as part of an entire tract and then adding to that, those specific, provable damages occasioned to the remainder by the taking, again treating the remainder as it existed prior to the taking, i.e., as part of an entire tract. 4A Julius L. Sackman & Patrick J. Rohan, Nichols' The Law of Eminent Domain § 14.02[1][c] (3d ed. 1994). [5] [¶ 38] If properly done, the before and after valuation appraisals should capture and reflect any severance damages. For this reason, the severance damage clause of the eminent domain compensation formula is, at best, superfluous. At worst, it raises constitutional questions if it purports to provide more just compensation to the eminent domain condemnee than § 24-9-101 provides to a similarly situated person in the private road context. In this regard, we find the following reasoning exceedingly persuasive: It is incorrect to think of `severance damage' as a separate and distinct item of just compensation apart from the difference between the market value of the entire tract immediately before the taking and the market value of the remainder immediately after the taking. In the case of a partial taking, if the `before and after' measure of compensation is properly submitted to the jury [or in the present case, considered by the commission], there is no occasion for the lawyers or the trial court to talk about `severance damage' as such, and indeed it may be confusing to do so. The matter is taken care of automatically in the `before and after' submission.  United States v. 9.20 Acres of Land, More or Less, Situate in Polk County, State of Iowa, 638 F.2d 1123, 1127 (8th Cir.1981) (quoting United States v. 91.90 Acres of Land, 586 F.2d 79, 86 (8th Cir.1978) (citations omitted)). [¶ 39] The relationships between the concepts of just compensation, fair market value, the before and after test, and severance damages were considered by this court in State Highway Commission v. Scrivner, 641 P.2d 735, 737-38 (Wyo.1982) (some citations omitted), as follows: The taking of private property by the State is permitted by the Wyoming Constitution so long as just compensation is paid. Article 1, § 33, Wyoming Constitution.... In Wyoming [just compensation] has been described as an equivalent in money for all property taken. Wyoming Railway Company v. Leiter, 25 Wyo. 286, 169 P. 1, 2 (1917). Elsewhere it has been similarly described; where property is taken, the State must pay the fair market value of that property. Thus the conclusion which follows is that just compensation is only for the fair market value of the property or property right lost or taken. Compensation for the owner's personal loss is not allowable. However, the question remains as to what are the proper considerations in determining the fair market value when only a portion of an owner's property is taken. In Wyoming the law is that the proper measure of damages in such instances is the difference between the fair market value of the owner's land before the taking and the value of the remainder after the taking. It consists of two elements: The value of the land actually taken and the amount in money by which the remainder is reduced in value as a result of the partial taking (severance damage). In Scrivner, this court found before and after appraisals necessarily incorporate severance damages. In other words, just compensation equals the fair market value of all property rights lost or taken, measured by the difference between the fair market value of the property before the taking and of the remainder after the taking. On this authority, we conclude the language of § 1-26-702(b) establishes the same standard as the before and after test enunciated in Lindt, emphasized in Miller, and codified in § 24-9-101 by the 2000 legislature. So long as it is clear from the record the County Commissioners fully compensated Mr. Mayland for the difference in the values of his land before and after the taking, their action must be sustained. [¶ 40] The appraisers made an on-site inspection and attended two days of evidentiary hearings. The evidence included lengthy testimony from Mr. Mayland's expert appraiser regarding the appraisal he conducted which formed the basis of his before and after valuations. He concluded the property sustained a $231,000 total loss in value. This figure included a seven percent value reduction, [6] monies to compensate for the cost of a reservoir/water system allegedly made necessary by the road, and a per acre sum for the actual road itself. Mr. Flitner's expert appraiser also testified extensively regarding the review appraisal she conducted, her criticisms of the Mayland appraisal, and her calculation of the before and after difference in value of $2,716. She testified the seven percent value reduction and the per acre sum for the road resulted in duplicative damages for the 6.39 acres taken by the thirty-foot right-of-way. [¶ 41] On December 1, 1999, the appraisers submitted notice of their decision to the County Commissioners. It reflected in relevant part: Consideration was given to instruction 1, 1a, 2, 3, 4, 4a, 5 and 6 in determining the final appraisal of damages as claimed by Mayland. Further consideration was given to the testimony of Martin R. Mayland, David A[.] Flitner, [Mr. Mayland's expert appraiser] and [Mr. Flitner's expert appraiser]. .... Any necessary access improvements and road maintenance, to include, but not limited to, water bars, ditching, grading, pot hole filling become the obligation of petitioner, David A. Flitner, both physically and monetarily. All gates, locks and or cattle guards become the obligation of the petitioner along with maintenance. Those said improvements shall become the property of the respondent, Martin R. Mayland. In conclusion, it is the determination of the appraisers that the petitioner, David A. Flitner, is obligated to the respondent, Martin R. Mayland, in the amount of $15,272.00 which includes $5,272.00 remuneration for perpetual taking which is 6.39 acres valued at $825.00 per acre and to include $10,000.00 damages. [¶ 42] The excerpt reveals the appraisers adopted Mr. Mayland's per acre value of $825 reflecting the highest and best use of the property was recreation as opposed to agriculture. They also determined the property incurred an additional $10,000 in damage. We conclude the appraisers made a reasonable inference from the evidence that Mr. Mayland's before property value was diminished by the taking in the amount of the actual value of the road acreage and the additional $10,000. An inference is a deduction of fact which may logically and reasonably be drawn from another fact or group of facts found or otherwise established in the action. Roussalis v. Wyoming Medical Center, Inc., 4 P.3d 209, 229 (Wyo.2000); Whipple v. Northern Wyoming Community College Foundation of Sheridan (Estate of Roosa), 753 P.2d 1028, 1034 (Wyo.1988). [¶ 43] It would serve no valid purpose to remand this matter and require the appraisers to provide before and after values which would simply reflect the value difference in the amount of the damages already determined. The decision was sufficient under the instruction the appraisers were given. No place in the record does it reflect that the appraisers were informed they were required to show the before and after values in their decision in any particular form. Instead, they were instructed to make a determination and assess the damages accordingly. We believe they followed the instructions they were given to the best of their ability. [¶ 44] As a general rule, parties are bound by the theories they advanced below. Ricci v. New Hampshire Insurance Company, 721 P.2d 1081, 1088 (Wyo.1986). The invited error doctrine provides, if a party requests or moves the court to make a ruling which is actually erroneous and the court does so, that party cannot take advantage of the error on appeal or review. Blumhagen v. State, 11 P.3d 889, 895 (Wyo.2000); Schott v. State, 864 P.2d 38, 39 (Wyo.1993). On this basis, we hold Mr. Mayland to the infirmities of his instruction to the extent it failed to advise the appraisers to specifically set out the before and after values separately. For these reasons, we affirm the appraisers' damages determination as adopted by the County Commissioners. In the interest of clarity, instructions to appraisers in these matters should provide direction to set out the before and after values of the impacted property as well as the factors affecting those values. [7]