Opinion ID: 1690236
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Harris' Testimony

Text: ¶ 27. The admission of testimony is within the discretion of the trial court and will be reversed only where there is an abuse of that discretion. Mississippi Transportation Comm'n v. Fires, 693 So.2d 917, 920 (Miss. 1997); Terrain Enterprises, Inc. v. Mockbee, 654 So.2d 1122, 1128 (Miss. 1995). Where a court has exercised its discretion in such a way that it misperceives the correct legal standard for the admission of evidence, the deference customarily afforded the lower court will be precluded because the error has become one of law. Fires, 693 So.2d at 920; Bean v. Broussard, 587 So.2d 908, 913 (Miss. 1991). ¶ 28. The Commission first argues that Harris' valuation of the subject property is based upon an imaginary tract of land with an unbelievably high price per square foot. They cite Mississippi State Highway Comm'n v. Valentine, 239 Miss. 890, 124 So.2d 690 (1960), for the proposition that: It is the duty of this Court to determine whether there is any reasonable, believable evidence which will support the verdict in this case. A proper exercise of the judicial function does not require us to believe the incredible. Appellees' witnesses are competent to testify, but because of the extreme, unreasonable, and unsupported valuations which they placed on the land, as analyzed above, their testimony has little probative value. 239 Miss. at 895-96, 124 So.2d at 692 (citations omitted). The Commission focuses on Harris' testimony on cross-examination, where he was questioned about the imaginary tract to which he had assigned a higher value. Harris' testimony on direct examination laid a foundation for the assignment of a higher value to that land bordering the intersection as well as for the delineation of that particular square footage to which he assigned a value based on high intensity commercial use. ¶ 29. As distinguished from the Commission's appraisal based on a single per acreage value for the total property, [8] this Court has stated that a piece of property can have several highest and best uses, and that its value should not be calculated based upon the value of the dominant use. Our case law does not require that property have a constant per acreage value based upon a single best use. Oughton v. Gaddis, 683 So.2d 390, 395 (Miss. 1996)(emphasis added). In Oughton, where we found that the lower court erred in finding that the property at issue had only one use: either agricultural or recreational and in disallowing testimony that the area where the easement was to be laid was part of the more valuable river front property, several cases from other jurisdictions were noted with approval for the proposition that: When the highest and best use of the property is not uniform throughout the tract in question, an appraiser may testify to the highest and best use for the different portions of the full tract involved. This rule makes sense in light of the purpose of the just compensation provision in the constitutions... . Here, the State seeks to take a portion of the full tract that includes a larger percentage of buildable, nonwetland property than does the tract as a whole. Consequently, the application here of the State's proposed rule, that an appraiser must offer only one valuation considering the total value of the entire parcel, would misrepresent the value of the specific land portion to be taken. Dep't of Transp. v. HP/Meachum Land Ltd. Partnership, 245 Ill. App.3d 252, 185 Ill.Dec. 351, 614 N.E.2d 485, 488 (1993) (citations omitted). [G]enerally the market value of the particular part of a tract expropriated is determined by the actual market value of the portion taken, and not by its average per-acre or square-foot value as a pro rata portion of the parent tract. State Through Dept. of Highways v. LeDoux, 184 So.2d 604, 610 (La. Ct. App. 1966). Oughton, 683 So.2d at 395. This is consistent with a long line of Mississippi cases which recognize that a property might have more than one highest and best use. See Dennis v. City Council of Greenville, 646 So.2d 1290, 1293 (Miss. 1994)(property can have various uses); Potters II, 608 So.2d at 1233(Within commercial properties, there are many uses of differing values.); Daniels v. Board of Supervisors of Clarke County, 323 So.2d 748, 749 (Miss. 1975)(property valuation not limited to present use, but with reference to any use to which it is reasonably adapted); Mississippi State Highway Comm'n v. Hancock, 309 So.2d 867 (Miss. 1975)(property's value enhanced by its adaptability to different uses); Mississippi State Highway Comm'n v. Brooks, 239 Miss. 308, 316-317, 123 So.2d 423 (1960)(property taken should be valued not just with reference to present use, but to highest and best use); State Highway Comm'n v. Brown, 176 Miss. 23, 33, 168 So. 277, 279 (1936)(property may have several uses or purposes and consideration must be given to fair market value of each). ¶ 30. As discussed in Fires, condemned land should be appraised with reference to any use to which it is reasonably adapted, and therefore, the best or most valuable use to which the property could reasonably be expected to be adapted is the use which should be considered, regardless of the current use of the property. Fires, 693 So.2d at 922; Brooks, 239 Miss. at 316-317, 123 So.2d at 427. Further, [t]o warrant admission of testimony as to the value for purposes other than that which the land is being put, or to which use is limited by ordinance at the time of the taking, the owner must first show: (1) that the property is adaptable to the other use; (2) that it is reasonably probable that the property will be put to the other use within the immediate future, or within a reasonable time; (3) and that the market value of the land has been enhanced by the other use for which it is adaptable. Fires, 693 So.2d at 922 ( citing Mississippi State Highway Comm'n v. Rogers, 236 Miss. 800, 112 So.2d 250 (1959)). The potential for development is a factor to be considered in determining the value of the property. Paulk v. Housing Authority of the City of Tupelo, 204 So.2d 153, 155 (Miss. 1967). However, `[m]ere speculative uses cannot be considered.' Mississippi State Highway Comm'n v. Wagley, 231 So.2d 507, 509 (Miss. 1970)( quoting Brooks, 239 Miss. at 316, 123 So.2d at 427). There must be a present demand for the land for such purpose or a reasonable expectation of such demand in the near future. Brooks, 239 Miss. at 317, 123 So.2d at 427; Redevelopment Authority of the City of Meridian v. Holsomback, 291 So.2d 712, 714 (Miss. 1974). ¶ 31. Harris' testimony was neither speculative nor inconsistent with the present zoning of the land. Our case law recognizes that a parcel of land might have more than one highest and best use. Indeed, Harris provided an adequate foundation for the delineation he made between that part of the property to which he assigned a higher value and that to which the lower large scale commercial valuation was applicable. Further, as discussed infra, Harris' valuation was proper pursuant to Hancock and Oughton.