Opinion ID: 2517385
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: A New Valuation Trial of the Entire Property Should Occur

Text: In my view, the appropriate remedy in this case is a new trial for valuation of the entire property. Our seminal case on whether it is permissible to grant a partial retrial instructs us that it should clearly appear that the issue to be retried is entirely distinct and separable. See Bassett v. O'Dell, 178 Colo. 425, 427, 498 P.2d 1134, 1135 (1972) (emphasis added). A partial retrial is possible only if retrying part, but not all, of the issues will not result in an injustice to either party. Gerrity Oil & Gas Corp. v. Magness, 946 P.2d 913, 934 (Colo.1997). Because the dispute in this case surrounds the valuation of the entire property, an examination of whether a partial or entire retrial is appropriate turns on the valuation method used by the parties at trial and the fairness of only retrying the value of Parcel B as ordered by the court of appeals. At trial, the School District and Security Life's experts used the same comparable sales valuation methodology but disputed each other's valuation adjustments. In addition, each party's experts approached the valuation differently given the various condemnation scenarios presented to the jury. The original trial was a single condemnation action for one piece of contiguous and similarly zoned property owned by Security Life, not two separate condemnation actions. See Jury Instruction No. 2 (The property that the [School District] seeks to acquire is approximately 138 acres. . . . The [School District] seeks to acquire the property in two parcels.). Thus, at the end of the first trial, the School District was entitled, if it so chose, to take the entire property or only Parcel A. Despite the two condemnation scenarios, the parties agreed to conduct only one valuation trial and provided jury instructions and a verdict form with the intent of arriving at a fair value for the entire property. Under a retrial of Parcel B, as the court of appeals ordered, the second jury would be prohibited from receiving and making a determination on all the relevant interrelated valuation evidence regarding the property as a whole. Thus, in my view, a retrial on the valuation of the entire property should occur.