Opinion ID: 357119
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The Landowners' Proof

Text: 5 Mr. Cook testified that the best use of the farm would be to sell it off in five or ten acre tracts for home sites because there's a lot of people looking for that size tract . . . and for that use, the farm is worth $225,000. He based his opinion on the fact that he had recently sold a residential lot off of his other farm in the same community for $4,000 and on the additional fact that two other farmers in the neighborhood had each sold several lots off their farms for $4,000 an acre. The Court instructed the jury to disregard Mr. Cook's opinion based on residential development because there was no showing of a substantial demand in the community for such small acreage tracts. 6 The Spencer County Planning Coordinator testified as a witness for the landowner. He acknowledged that the county had steadily lost population since 1920 but stated that his research indicated changes were occurring in this traditional oriented community of small farmers. The two most significant changes, according to the planner, were the return of . . . people's sons and daughters who had migrated to the city for jobs, coming back home to live in the country to participate in the local way of life while continuing to drive to the city for employment and . . . the residential build-up from urban people coming into the community, getting away from the city, coming out in the rural countryside to enjoy life in the small community. He said that as a result of this pattern, and as a result of the expansion of metropolitan Louisville, Spencer County had just begun to feel the pressures of population growth. 7 Following the testimony of the county planner, the landowner offered to prove through an experienced local real estate broker the farm's potential for development into small acreage residential tracts. The District Judge conducted a preliminary inquiry out of the jury's presence in order to determine whether a foundation existed for such evaluation testimony. 8 The real estate expert agreed with the county's planner that population trends in the area were changing and contended that there was a large demand for such small acreage tracts; during the past several years, he had received many telephone calls from potential purchasers for such tracts; and for several years he had been in the process of developing three farms into small acreage tracts, including his own farm. He testified that he knew of several other farms which were being similarly subdivided into small acreage tracts. The sales prices for such tracts ranged from less than $1,000 an acre to $4,000 an acre. Based on these sales, his estimate of the demand, and his opinion that the Cook farm could be successfully subdivided, he appraised the Cook's farm at $197,000. 9 The District Judge ruled the witness' testimony inadmissible on the ground that there was no reasonable likelihood that the entire farm could be subdivided into small acreage tracts because there was no substantial demand for such tracts. The Court then advised the real estate broker that he would be permitted to testify to the jury that the highest and best use of the farm was for a strip residential development along the road, with the remainder of the land to be valued as farm land. 10 Following the Court's advice, the witness so testified to the jury; but at the conclusion of his testimony the Court concluded that there was no substantial demand in the area for such a strip development consisting of small residential lots. The Court changed its ruling and instructed the jury that it should disregard any evaluation testimony not based exclusively on agricultural uses. In its formal charge, the Court reminded the jury of its previous instructions to this effect, saying, the Court has determined and so instructed you that the highest and best use of Mr. Cook's property as of this date of taking was for general agricultural use.