Opinion ID: 2498646
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Events Leading Up To Trial

Text: Landowner initiated district court review of the $3.2 million appraisers' award for the June 29, 2007, taking of three tracts of land: one unimproved, one underlying a Rainbo Bread business, and one underlying a Manhattan Meats processing plant. During pretrial discovery, the City took depositions of landowner's president, Steve Saroff; landowner's designated appraisal expert, Christopher J. Heavey, whose resume identifies him as a property management professional; and landowner's designated rebuilding expert, James Larva, a construction project manager. During his deposition, Saroff opined that the three tracts had a total fair market value of $10 million. Heavey's written report included a total fair market value for the three tracts of $12,241,367.86, $7,907,205 of which was attributable to the replacement cost of the Manhattan Meats processing plant. This cost was calculated in the written report of Larva. At the time of the pretrial conference, the trial judge permitted landowner to add Dr. James Marsden as an expert witness. Landowner intended to use Marsden to testify on United States Department of Agriculture regulations for meat processing plants. The City filed an initial and supplemental motion in limine before trial, seeking exclusion of: (1) Testimony of Heavey on any opinion about the Rainbo Bread or Manhattan Meats tract or any proposed use, on fair market value of the subject property, on the replacement cost method of appraising, and on depreciation of the subject property; (2) Testimony of Larva or of Mark Redmond on any opinion of the cost to build or replace any improvements; (3) Testimony of Bob Bramhall on any opinion of the cost to install heating or air conditioning units or refrigeration equipment; (4) Testimony of Saroff on any opinion of value related to this case; (5) Testimony of Saroff and/or Debbie Saroff on the uniqueness of the property, just compensation, conversations with the City regarding the property, special use of the property, historical value of the property, compatible uses of the property, or planned improvements; (6) Testimony of Marsden on any special value or any other value of the subject property; (7) Testimony of Jean Wherrel; Brett Ballou, Roger Schultz, Tim Schultz, or any representative of Schultz Construction Company; testimony of Jim Gleason, Mark Warner, Don Ince, Joe Mills, Bruce McCallum or any representative of Dial Realty; testimony of Ron Fehr, Jason Hilgers or Brian Williams; or Don Crubel on any issue; (8) The contract for purchase of Ince's stock, other evidence of Ince's buyout, or photos from the national registry of Saroff's historical home; and (9) Any evidence related to the Kansas Department of Transportation's acquisition of property for a bridge over the Kansas River. In the trial judge's order ruling on the motions, he stated: 1. Replacement cost less depreciation is a valid and recognized method of valuing land in a condemnation proceeding. 2. The opinions of Chris Heavey and a representative of Herndon & Redmond, Inc.[,] are admissible as to the cost of the replacement of the existing buildings and land within the subject tract. 3. Steve Saroff, as a landowner, is entitled to testify as to the value of his land, notwithstanding his opinion may be based on what he has heard from others. 4. The testimony of Bob Bramhall as to the cost of refrigeration equipment is too remote in time and will not be allowed. 5. With regard to defendant's supplemental motion in limine the [testimony of Saroff or Debbie Saroff regarding the uniqueness of the property, just compensation, conversations with the City regarding the property, historical value of the property, compatible uses of property, planned but not yet accomplished improvements or design changes to the property; testimony of Don Crubel regarding the subject properties; testimony of Jean Wherrel; testimony of Brett Ballou, Roger Schultz, Tim Schultz, or any other representative of Schultz Construction Company; testimony of Jim Gleason, Mark Warner, Don Ince, Joe Mills, Bruce McCallum or any representative of Dial Realty; testimony of Ron Fehr, Jason Hilgers, or Brian Williams regarding any issue in this matter; introduction of the contract for purchase of Don Ince's stock, other evidence of Ince's buyout, or photos of national registry of Steve Saroff's historical home; and introduction of any evidence related to the DOT's acquisition of property related to bridge over the Kansas River] will not be allowed as irrelevant. . . . 6. The DVD recording of the view of plaintiff's premises is relevant and admissible on the issue of depreciation in the replacement cost approach to valuation. 7. The testimony of James Marsden is inadmissible as irrelevant to the only issue in this case, that is the fair market value of the land in question. Landowner sought reconsideration of the trial judge's decision regarding Saroff's testimony on the uniqueness of the property and possible design changes. The City responded, arguing that evidence of uniqueness was appropriate only when there was no ascertainable market or comparable sales for the property. The district judge ruled that Saroff could testify in detail about the description of the subject property, its prior uses, and its use on the day of the taking; but he could not testify about what could have been done with the property.